EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Friday, May 12, 1995

.0905

[English]

The Chair: I'd like to call the meeting to order. I expected Mr. Mosley to be at the witness table, as well as the senior officer from the RCMP, and the senior officer from Revenue Canada.

We have Mr. Connolly from the Department of National Revenue, Mr. Mosley from Justice, Inspector Buisson from the RCMP and, also, the two chief firearms officers, Mr. Mathias and Mr. Kramers.

In their rounds of questioning, the members will be able to put any of the technical questions that they wish and I would ask the senior officers from the various departments to call whoever it is necessary to call, from their departments or agencies, to assist. There are extra chairs there and they would just come to the table to answer the questions.

Mr. Mosley, I understand that you have a short opening statement which is in response to some of the matters that have been raised during the hearings, thus far. So we'll hear the short opening statement and then we'll proceed immediately to the rounds of questioning.

Mr. Richard C. Mosley, Q.C. (Assistant Deputy Minister, Criminal and Social Policy Sector, Department of Justice): At the outset, I should perhaps introduce myself. I'm the assistant deputy minister responsible for the criminal and social policy sector of the Department of Justice, which includes the two units which have been chiefly involved in providing support and assistance to the Minister of Justice in the development of Bill C-68 and the related program initiatives. Those are the firearms control task group, which is headed by Jim Hayes, who is here today with colleagues from that group, and the criminal law policy section, which is headed by Yvan Roy, who is also present with Irit Weiser, the officer who led the instructions for the bill.

In addition, we have a number of colleagues who have expertise in different areas. As you have indicated, I'm joined at the table by Mr. Kramers, who is the chief provincial firearms officer for the province of Nova Scotia, and Mr. Hank Mathias, who is the chief provincial firearms officer for the province of British Columbia. We had asked that the chief provincial firearms officer for the province of Quebec be in attendance as well, but unfortunately he was unable to appear. Mr. Connolly is the director for law enforcement with Revenue Canada, Customs and Excise, and Inspector Buisson is in charge of the firearms registration section of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. Mr. Connolly and Inspector Buisson are accompanied by a number of officers of their respective departments who could also come to the table, as required.

Mr. Chairman, I'm not going to spend a lot of time but there are just a few things I thought I would highlight, in terms of the issues we have noted from the proceedings, thus far, and the evidence which the committee has heard. I think there are some areas that you might wish to touch on today but in regard to search and seizure, for example, this is an area where we feel there may be some confusion on the part of some of those who have examined Bill C-68, but perhaps out of context, in respect of the existing search and seizure powers within the Criminal Code. Bill C-68 essentially carries over the existing powers which are presently in the criminal law, with virtually no variation.

However, the inspection powers have been considerably expanded and, of course, I think that's another area committee members will want to touch on. I'm sure there may be questions about the aboriginal rights and treaty rights and consultations in respect of those; the offences relating to registration and the issue as to whether inadvertence is sufficient in order to support a criminal offence; and the regulations, a process by which they would be submitted to Parliament for scrutiny and the process with regard to Orders in Council. On that I would wish to note, Mr. Chairman, that this process with regard to Orders in Council has been essentially intact since the provisions were adopted by Parliament in the late seventies and was continued through Bill C-17.

.0910

The key change with regard to the scrutiny of regulations in this bill is, of course, that they will not now be tied to the Senate timetable, which proved to be a considerable problem in the aftermath of the adoption of Bill C-17.

With regard to the exemptions from that review process, our view is that there is a need for such exemptions in order to deal with matters such as changes to forms or computer screens that will be involved, translation changes, wording that might better serve to clarify the regulatory requirement and perhaps may assist with respect to the level of convenience for firearms users.

In terms of urgency, these would be largely administrative matters which would not be perceived we believe by Parliament as requiring close examination.

Finally, with regard to the use about the existing safe storage rules, which of course would be continued under the regulations which were adopted following Bill C-17, our view is that they are flexible enough to deal with a number of the problems which have been identified in the presentations to the committee.

With that, Mr. Chairman, I'll stop and be pleased to respond to questions with colleagues.

The Chair: Very good. We're going to proceed in the usual way with our rounds of questioning, but during those rounds the members will be permitted to put any of the questions that they had in mind which arose out of the hearings thus far.

I would like to remind the members of the committee, however, that these are officials who are here this morning and, while we may ask them questions as to how something developed or how it's interpreted or how it might be administered and what does it mean, these officials did not make the policy. In other words, if we have a disagreement as to why we are going ahead with the registry system or not, we may ask them how they understand it and whether they think it would be good or bad. But it's the minister and the government who will come to us later that we can debate with on whether we think this is a good provision or a bad provision.

I'm talking about it from a political point of view, not as an administrative one. In any case, I'll be as open as possible in allowing the questions, and I'll just try and avoid a policy debate here because I don't think we should get into policy debates with officials, but with politicians.

So I will start avec Madam Venne for ten minutes and then we'll proceed to the Reform Party and the government and so on in the usual way.

[Translation]

Mrs. Venne: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I believe it's Mr. Mosley who is going to have to answer my question. When he came before us, the Justice Minister told us that it would cost $11 million to fund the firearms control task group. There would be $6 million to maintain the existing system for five years and $5 million to implement the new system.

As you indicated earlier, Mr. Hayes is the group's director and he works with about seven or eight people. I would like you to tell me how this $11 million is going to be spent. I would also like to know who are the members of this group, what they do and what is the basis of these budget estimates.

.0915

[English]

Mr. Mosley: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'd like to call on Georges Saumure, who is the senior financial advisor to the Firearm Control Task Group, to respond to that question.

Mr. Georges Saumure (Senior Financial Advisor, Firearm Control Task Group, Justice Department): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would ask Mrs. Venne to repeat her question, if she wouldn't mind, since I moved and missed part of it.

The Chair: I hope in the future this won't be necessary, because we'll be here until 6 p.m. if we have to repeat every question. On this occasion I would ask Madame Venne to do it, but some way or other...

There are listening devices, I believe, in those chairs back there. I would ask that everybody listen, and if it appears it may be a question that's in your area of responsibility, take a few notes so that you're able to answer the question. Otherwise, every time we'll have to repeat the question.

[Translation]

The Chair: Mrs. Venne.

Mrs. Venne: I was referring to the firearm control task group. I am going to repeat my question since you didn't hear it. When he came before this Committee, the Justice Minister told us that it would cost $11 million to fund the firearms control task group. This amount was to be allocated in the following manner: $6 million dollars to maintain the existing system and $5 million to implement the new one. We know Mr. Hayes is the group's director and that it includes seven or eight people.

First of all, I would like to know how these $11 million are going to be spent, second, I would like you to give me the names of the group's members, third, I would like you to tell me what they are doing and, finanlly, what is the basis of these budget estimates.

Mr. Saumure: Regarding the funding allocated to the firearms control task group, the money is going to be spent over the next five years. As Mrs. Venne indicated, we are talking about $11 million over the next five years.

This amount is divided into two parts. The first one, amounting to $5 million, is going to be spent over the next five years if the existing legislation is not changed. In theory, it will be used to maintain the existing gun control program.

The second part, amounting to $6 million, is linked to Bill C-68. It will be used to implement the provisions in Bill C-68.

Now, to be more precise, the first $5 million will finance a considerable number of activities such as: policy development, consultations and projects designed to maintain the gun control program at the federal level as well as existing agreements and partnership with the provinces and other federal agencies.

Regarding the remaining $6 million, this sum will be used to implement the provisions in Bill C-68, and to improve, in particular, the coordination of consultations with our federal and provincial partners as well as businesses.

.0920

Yes, following Bill-68, the new registration applications will certainly have an impact on the private sector and it is for that reason that we want to consult it. In fact, we have already started.

[English]

Mr. Mosley: Mr. Chairman, it may be of some assistance to expand on that answer by inviting Jim Hayes to comment on the organizational structure of the Firearms Control Task Group, as it is currently and as it is developing.

Mr. James Hayes (Co-ordinator, Firearms Control Task Group, Department of Justice): Mr. Chairman, in answer to Mrs. Venne's question, the organization of the Firearms Control Task Group was put in place about four and a half years ago, to support the government's legislative initiative. I want to say that it was intended, at that time, to be temporary and would revolve back to a core group to maintain support to Justice on firearms and weapons legislation.

It continued to deal with the implementation of the last legislation and, since the last election, is now dealing with support of the legislative initiative of this government.

First of all, the task group deals with the policy area, and we have several people working on that, some of whom are permanent and some of whom are seconded. Carolyn Saint-Denis, with whom many of you on the committee have dealt, is the senior policy adviser in the group, responsible for maintaining the policy strategy in support of the government's initiatives.

The second area in the area of policy that we have been charged with, since the Auditor General's Report, is to respond to the recommendation on reviewing the smuggling issue. So from that point of view there has been a very strong policy initiative in that area, providing advice at various stages, in partnership with several of our other departments, such as, Customs, the RCMP, and Foreign Affairs.

The other area that I would turn to is the FAC system. As you know, we have a group that we've built, jointly, with the provinces...a firearms acquisition certificate system. It was built in partnership with the provinces, some time ago, and is now in operation and is being used by the provinces. Since that time, we have been asked by our colleagues in the provinces to expand the capacity of that FAC system to include the safety education course.

The other area that we deal with is what I would call the program side of the firearms task group. In that, we deal with a couple of very important parts of the program, and one that continues over time is the financial agreements part. The second area that was initiated and on which there remains a considerable amount of work to be done now, in response to this legislation, is safety education.

[Translation]

Mrs. Venne: Mr. Hayes, I am sorry to interrupt you, but I have only ten minutes.

Mr. Hayes: Yes.

Mrs. Venne: Since your group has been in place for a few years, I would like to know if you could give us written figures so that we can consult them.

Mr. Hayes: Very well.

Mrs. Venne: Could you give us those figures, particularly on the way that money has been spent until now. That might be useful to us, and I could then ask you another question.

[English]

Mr. Hayes: Yes, I think some of that information was given, in answers, at the time estimates were presented to the House. For the existing budget on which we're operating, I think we would be delighted to outline - in an extension of the response I'm making today - what the other programs are doing and for what they're responsible.

But I would like to say that one of the parts of our investment in our own budget is that we spend a fair amount of our program budget to ensure that there's equality in the participation of the provinces with the federal government on the policy development and on the program development. We are probably quite exemplary - if I may say - to a lot of other programs across government in terms of that kind of investment. It ensures that on every stage of the way they can have direct influence on the policy development, the program design and in fact on the delivery. I know that this issue, the level of consultation, was raised throughout the process in the last number of weeks.

.0925

The budget of the Firearms Control Task Group supports the flow of consultation programs with our provincial colleagues. All of those elements I'm speaking of, Mr. Chairman, have had provinces and territories at the table as we begin with each element of the program and each element of the policy.

[Translation]

The Chair: Mrs. Venne, one last question.

Mrs. Venne: Yes. I asked you earlier for a list of names. You have mentioned one other person, apart from yourself. There are only two of you?

Mr. Hayes: Apart from myself?

Mrs. Venne: Yes, apart from yourself. You said there was Carole St-Denis. I'm not sure, but it appears to me...

There are seven or eight people in that group.

[English]

Mr. Hayes: I can provide the list of -

[Translation]

Mrs. Venne: You are going to give me the list of names.

[English]

Mr. Hayes: ...the people who are working on the program and what duties are the focus of their responsibilities.

[Translation]

Mme Venne: Perfect.

[English]

The Chair: If you would provide that information to the clerk so that we could give it Madam Venne and the rest of us since we're finishing our hearings next Friday unless we pass the resolution of Mr. Ramsay.

[Translation]

Mme Venne: I have to have that information before next Thursday.

M. Hayes: I will give it to you.

[English]

Mr. Ramsay (Crowfoot): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to focus my questions on the area of the responsibility of the chief firearms officer, but before I do that I'd just like to ask a question of information from Mr. Mosley. Mr. Jessop, from the Canadian Police Association, appeared before our committee and indicated that, from his opinion, Bill C-68 is empty without assurance against smuggling. I would ask whether or not the task force has conducted an investigation into the area of smuggling and if their findings have been submitted in the form of a report or at what stage that is at?

Mr. Mosley: Thank you. Yes, a working group was formed roughly a year ago to examine the issue of illegal importation of firearms into Canada. That included representatives from the Department of Justice, the Ministry of the Solicitor General, Revenue Canada Customs, the RCMP and the Department of Foreign Affairs, and provincial representation from the Province of Quebec, Sûreté du Québec, Province of Ontario, the OPP, and the Province of British Columbia through the co-ordinated law enforcement unit. Also, there was close liaison with the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police.

That working group undertook a program of research, of consultation and of analysis. The research findings, I believe, were made available to the committee last week. They consisted of a number of site studies from across the country and also from the RCMP information system about the firearms that were recovered by the police in, I believe, eight Canadian centres and the RCMP global information system. The report of the working group has been submitted in draft form to the ministers responsible and, subject to refinement and final editing and translation, we're hopeful that this will be available to the committee as early as next week.

.0930

Mr. Ramsay: Well, of course, that's what I'm looking for, your report. It's not going to do our committee that much good if we don't get that report in time to analyse it and perhaps call witnesses to answer pertinent questions that might arise from that report.

Seeing that we do have a deadline of the 19th, what assurance can you give the committee that that report will be available in sufficient time for us to examine it and perhaps call witnesses?

Mr. Mosley: Mr. Chairman, I'm sure you appreciate this is a decision for ministers to make and I can only offer this assurance that to the extent the staff work required will be done to finalize document, we are making effort to do so.

We can make arrangements, I'm sure, to provide the principle findings and recommendations from the working group in a form that might be more helpful to the committee perhaps early next week. The effort is being made to finalize it, but I'm sure you appreciate there are a number of ministers involved, all of whom will have to sign off on the document before it can be publicly released.

Mr. Ramsay: Sounds to me like the committee may be getting out in front of the work that's being done by the task force in support of Bill C-68.

I'll leave it at that and what I'd like to do, Mr. Chairman, if I can, for the next three or four minutes is focus attention upon the duties and responsibilities of the chief firearms officers of the provinces. We have two here today and I thank you gentlemen for coming this morning.

I'd like to first ask this. Are you familiar with Bill C-68?

Mr. Henry C. Mathias (Chief, Security Programs Division, Ministry of Attorney General, Government of British Columbia): Yes, I am.

Mr. Maarten Kramers (Policing Services Division, Department of Justice, Government of Nova Scotia): Yes.

Mr. Ramsay: Thank you. Then is it your understanding that under the definition section, will ``chief firearms officer'' refer to you gentlemen?

Mr. Kramers: It refers to us and we are able to delegate the powers that are provided us to firearms officers at the local level.

Mr. Ramsay: Do you agree with that, Mr. Mathias?

Mr. Mathias: Certain [Inaudible], yes.

Mr. Ramsay: Under the present system where you're responsible for processing firearms acquisition certificates, would you just explain the process?

Of course, I'm looking at paragraph 5(2)(a) of Bill C-68 where there is a criminal record check or you must attempt a reconnaissance of the criminal record of the applicant; also under paragraph 5(2)(b), whether the applicant has been treated for a mental illness; and paragraph 5(2)(c), whether there is a history of behaviour that includes violence, threatened or otherwise.

Is that similar to the process you're following now under the FAC application? Do you follow a similar process of background checks? Do you check for a criminal history, a history of violence and the question of mental health problems of the applicant?

Mr. Mathias: Well, sir, the way it's structured in British Columbia - and I suspect in other jurisdictions - is that the local firearms officers who are designated in fact undertake those checks. When an application for a firearms acquisition certificate is made, it goes to a local police agency - we use police officers for this - and the necessary checks are carried out there.

As it stands today, the Office of the Chief Provincial Firearms Officer is the administrative processing point for those applications once they've been approved at the local level.

We run another criminal record check there and, if there are any issues that we see arising from an application that give us concern, we'll go back to the local firearms officer and say that we have a concern here and would they please take another look at it. That's our process.

Mr. Ramsay: Okay, thank you.

You don't require authority from the applicant to do the criminal record check?

Mr. Mathias: When you apply for an FAC, you are agreeing to have that done.

Mr. Ramsay: And what about in the area of mental health? Does the same policy or procedure follow?

Mr. Mathias: If there were indications that there were mental health issues that were apparent from the investigation associated with the application, those could be undertaken.

.0935

If I may, in British Columbia I appeared at a coroner's inquest a few months ago where there was significant concern about the ability of the local firearms officers in fact to pursue issues related to the mental health of people in terms of getting information. In this case, a person who it was determined was mentally ill had in fact received a firearms acquisition certificate and murdered someone.

So, it's there and it can be done, but whether or not people feel it has sufficient force to be able to go as far as they need, no.

Mr. Ramsay: What is the procedure if there is evidence that there may be a mental health problem? What authority do you have today to look further into evidence or indication of a mental health problem?

Mr. Mathias: My understanding is that the chief provincial firearms officer has very limited authority. The authority goes with the local firearms officer investigating the FAC application.

If a local firearms officer were to approve an FAC application that came to my attention and I was able to determine that there were some issues related to mental illness, for example, I could not refuse the application. I could only go back to the local firearms officer and attempt to convince them to undertake a more thorough investigation.

Mr. Ramsay: Is it possible that with the consent of the applicant, if there is indication of mental health problems, that an examination of the pertinent portion of the medical file might be done? Is that pursued at all?

Mr. Mathias: I think it is, but we're dependent today on the skill and interest of the local firearms officer in pursuing that.

Some people are able to approach somebody's physician to say that they made an application, presumably to acquire a firearm, and would he have any concerns about that. The physician may answer that and not reveal anything. He could just say, no, he would be concerned about that.

Others are less skilful at doing that and may ask if there is anything there they could see that would do this, and the physician would likely say no.

Mr. Kramers: Yes, with relation to the authority of the firearms officer who has received the application, there are provisions presently under Part III of the Criminal Code that they can conduct inquiries into employment and contact the medical doctor. Again, it requires the cooperation of the doctor.

However, on the application form, which is a multi-paged application, the applicant has to provide information that may indicate whether or not he has suffered from depression or been seeing a doctor. These are questions specifically asked of the applicant in the application. There is authority under the code to go further.

Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Chairman, where am I on your watch?

The Chair: You're one minute over the time.

Mr. Ramsay: Thank you. I'd like to come back to this later on, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: Sure.

Members of the committee, over the weeks of the hearings I've been accumulating a lot of questions that I feel need clarification. It's an unusual way of proceeding, but unless members on the government side have a long list of questions, I was going to put these right away to use that ten minutes myself. Is that agreed?

The first thing we've had a lot of concern about is the criminalization of a person who hasn't registered or doesn't have their licence and it's a first offence. The typical example given is a grandmother who's had a long gun, a rifle or a shotgun in attic and somebody checks and finds out she hasn't got a licence to possess or a registration on that gun. According to clause 91 of the bill, she could be charged with an indictable offence with a penalty of up to five years or a summary offence.

The minister himself has asked us to look at alternatives for this and we've been asking questions, but I want to put to you several alternatives that have been suggested to us and ask you what you think.

.0940

The first is, the police have suggested to us that no change is necessary, that the bill could stay as it is because there is plenty of discretion in police officers in laying charges. In other words, a reasonable policeman, having found that gun, would simply say to the grandmother that it should be registered and why doesn't she go out and get it registered, and through discretion he would just not lay the charge.

The other alternative would be that they might lay the charge, maybe in case that is not as clear-cut as that, but the judge could give an absolute or conditional discharge. The condition might be: you're guilty, but the conditional discharge is that you get the gun registered within three weeks or whatever.

I'd like you to respond, Mr. Mosley, or whomever. Maybe the RCMP might want to comment too on what their policy is on laying charges in cases like this.

We have, of course, the examples of the long history with registered handguns. How would you respond to the suggestion that this could be dealt with simply by using sound discretion in the laying of charges or by the use of the absolute or conditional discharge provisions?

Mr. Mosley: Perhaps I'll respond initially, Mr. Chairman, and in part draw on my personal experience as a former provincial crown attorney.

The position taken by the police associations on this point accords, I think, with the common understanding about the administration of criminal justice in this country that there are incidents every day that could result in a charge being laid, and discretion is exercised by the investigating officer not to lay a charge, or the matter is brought to the local crown attorney and a decision is made not to proceed with the charge, or the matter is brought to court and then disposed of by the withdrawal or the stay of proceeding on that matter.

If it is continued through to a finding of guilt, the court does have, of course, the discretion in sentencing to decline to enter a conviction and to impose instead a discharge. Records are kept of those discharges, but they are not kept for as long, or in the same form, or in a form that carries the same stigma as a record for a criminal conviction.

Now with regard to the -

The Chair: Could I interrupt right away? For a person going to the United States or going abroad, would that conviction be entered into the computer system, so the person could be stopped at the border if it was said that they had a criminal record, even though it was a discharge for an offence like that?

Mr. Mosley: I think on that perhaps it might be helpful to have the assistance either of Revenue Canada or of the officer from the RCMP CPIC system who is present here. Perhaps we could call on Inspector Buisson to respond generally about the RCMP position and -

The Chair: I'd like to know what the policy of the RCMP is with respect to laying charges in matters like this, and then the other questions could be answered too.

Mr. Buisson.

Inspector Mike Buisson (Officer in Charge, Special Registries Branch, Royal Canadian Mounted Police): Mr. Chairman, I'd like to call on Superintendent George Kaine of our criminal operations group, please. I think he is better able to answer that question.

The Chair: Very good.

Superintendent George Kaine (Officer in Charge, Economic Crime Branch): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I think, by way of example, if one considers what police officers do when they find people in possession of one counterfeit bill, it would be analogous to the situation that would cause a police officer to exercise the same discretion when he found a person in innocent possession of firearm that there is no evidence whatsoever to suggest was hidden or that was going to be used for -

The Chair: Simply has not been registered.

Supt Kaine: I would expect that the same discretion we would show with that innocent possession of one counterfeit bill would carry forward in the same situation.

The Chair: Can you answer the question on CPIC? If a person was convicted of having a weapon that wasn't registered but got an absolute discharge -

Supt Kaine: No, I can't.

The Chair: - does that go into the CPIC system?

Supt Kaine: I can't help you there. I think on CPIC, Mr. Simpson - we hate to be jumping around, but -

The Chair: I guess it's the only way; there are a lot of questions we have to ask.

Maybe I'll ask another question to Mr. Mosley while you change places.

.0945

Can you tell us how many times permits have been given for restricted weapons in accordance with the provisions on page 14 of the bill under the present law for self-protection, people who have applied for a handgun permit, let's say, in the last few year and who have a permit for self-protection?

We are told that very, very few have, but since it's in the law, some people have been arguing that it's a part of Canadian policy that people should have guns for self-protection, which really isn't the policy of the Canadian government. Do you have any statistics on that? I'm going to come back in a minute to the other matter.

Mr. Mosley: Actually, the issuance of that type of permit is a matter for the provincial and local authorities to determine. Our understanding is that it is used in very, very rare situations where there is clear evidence of a direct threat to the personal safety of that individual, not a generalized concern about crime in the streets but a direct threat to that person. Perhaps -

The Chair: Would the chief firearms officers be able to enlighten us on this point?

Mr. Mosley: I think they might.

Mr. Kramers: In regard to the authorization for the permit to carry for protection of life, we have not issued any of those in Nova Scotia. Most of those requests have gone nationally and have been issued from a national level. They are issued on very limited cases only, as Mr. Mosley explained. In Nova Scotia, we have not issued any such permits for protection of life.

The Chair: In British Columbia?

Mr. Mathias: It's the same situation. We haven't issued any.

The Chair: Mr. Mosley, before we do the clause-by-clause, I think we'd like to know how many permits were issued on those sections in a reasonable number of years.

Mr. Mosley: I think we could try to get that by contacting each of the jurisdictions. My understanding is that across the country there is less than a hundred, but we will try to confirm that for you.

The Chair: Okay, we'll go back to the RCMP on CPIC. Did you hear the question?

Superintendent Doug Simpson (Officer in Charge, CPIC, Royal Canadian Mounted Police): Yes, I did, Mr. Chairman.

It's very unlikely that there would be a record on CPIC. We're talking about a situation where there is a great deal of discretion and latitude provided to the peace officer, and if the situation is such that it's the grandmother with the shotgun in the attic, if there was reason to proceed with charges, they would most likely be proceeded with by way of summary conviction.

There would be no fingerprints taken; there would be no record. The records held in the criminal record data bank are the result of fingerprints being taken and the conviction being registered, which can relate to those fingerprints.

It is possible because it's a summary conviction charge, but the original charge is by dual process, so the availability is there, again, as a discretionary act on the part of the peace officer to require that the fingerprints be taken. In all likelihood they would not be taken, and because there would be no fingerprints, there would be no record available through CPIC.

The Chair: I'm going to put two small questions to you then move on. When we had the museums and the factories or the manufacturers before us they complained that under the present law and under this bill, for example, in a museum, every employee would have to get at the present time a firearms acquisition certificate, even the person who cleaned the floor at night, despite the fact that they have all their weapons in the museum very secure. They point out that the cost of this is very high for a public institution like a museum, or for the factory that produces armaments, to have everybody - the one who takes out the garbage, the receptionists, and so on.

I want to ask you, why is that necessary, or was it just an oversight? It seems unreasonable to many of us.

The next question is, how did you come to decide on banning certain handguns simply measuring the barrel rather than the length of the gun?

We were told by witnesses that if you really want to ban Saturday-night specials, you don't put in the law the length of the barrel but the length of the gun. By doing the length of the barrel, you're catching a lot of guns that are used in international competitions. But if you wanted to have a better definition and catch what are called the cheap Saturday-night specials, you would have done it in a different way.

So I put those two questions, and then I'll go back to the other members.

.0950

Mr. Mosley: In regard to the first question, Mr. Chairman, I wouldn't describe it as an oversight. There have been some concerns over the years about individual museums and the degree of control that has been exercised over the firearms in their collections, so it was considered appropriate to require that anyone who would have access to those firearms meet the requirements that would apply to anyone else who would have access to firearms.

However, this is clearly an area where I think there is a common agreement that the bill might be improved and we would be pleased, perhaps, to work with the staff of the committee on developing possible suggestions that the committee might wish to consider at clause by clause.

On the second point, I think it's both a policy and a technical question. In regard to the policy side of it, that is a matter which I think would be most appropriate for the minister to address. Some of the considerations which relate to that question go to the number of such firearms in the country with a barrel length below 105 millimetres to, say, perhaps 97, as I understand has been suggested.

The Chair: I presume from what the minister said when he came here, that the real target here is to get rid of the cheap, easily concealable handguns, and he said he did not want to hurt competitive shooting. So, consequently, what we're talking about is: how do you define the gun you really want to ban without hurting the ones you don't want to ban? I don't know who sat down and drew up the definition but it seems, according to the competitive shooters, that we've gone beyond even what we say we want to do.

Mr. Mosley: I think that's a matter on which there could be some debate, Mr. Chairman. I think it was the minister's view that, included within the number of firearms that fell within that barrel-length specification there were a large number of the cheap, easily concealable firearms that were the intended target of this proposal.

In regard to the technical aspects of that issue, I think it would be helpful perhaps to the committee to hear from the chief forensic firearms scientist of the RCMP, Mr. Murray Smith, about the number of firearms, for example, which fall exactly at four inches, and the difficulty in distinguishing among those.

The Chair: Okay.

Mr. Murray Smith (Chief Forensic Firearms Scientist, Royal Canadian Mounted Police): One of the problems in separating the so-called ``Saturday-night- -special'' firearms from firearms that would be used in international target competitions, such as the Olympics, is that there is considerable overlap in the dimensions - both in barrel length and in overall length - among these weapons, so the smallest of these Olympic target pistols would fall within the same dimensional specifications, both for barrel and for overall length, as many of the ``Saturday-night- special'' weapons that the minister indicated he wished to prohibited.

The Chair: I see. I guess some of the members might return to that.

I'll go to Mrs. Venne and I just want to point out that I have on the government list: Mr. Lee, Mr. Wappel, Ms Torsney, and Mrs. Barnes.

Mrs. Venne, for five minute.

[Translation]

Mrs. Venne: In your view, is it possible with subparagraph t), section 110, page 48 of the bill, to allow aboriginal peoples not to register themselves or not to register their weapons?

[English]

Mr. Mosley: I understood that question to refer to the regulation-making authority in paragraph (t), at page 48, line 23. It is the view of the department that this would not exempt aboriginal individuals from the requirement to register firearms. It does, however, provide a statutory authority to apply the requirements of the bill in a flexible manner to aboriginal individuals and collectives. So there may be means by which the application of the registration requirements is eased in aboriginal communities, without evading the requirements, that might not apply elsewhere.

.0955

[Translation]

Mrs. Venne: I'm going to stop you right there because that is not what I was getting at with my question. I am asking whether under subsection 110(t) of the bill, the aboriginal people of Canada could not be subject to the requirement to register their firearms. That is my question. I'm not asking about the purpose of the regulations that are to follow.

[English]

Mr. Mosley: That is not our interpretation of that provision. The simple answer is no.

[Translation]

Mrs. Venne: So, your answer is that it would not be possible to say to the aboriginal peoples of Canada, under this subsection of the bill, that they are not required to register their firearms.

[English]

Mr. Mosley: That is our interpretation of the provision.

[Translation]

Mrs. Venne: That is your interpretation. Fine.

I would like to ask another question. To my knowledge, when the government decided in January to refund the owners of certain firearms that became prohibited weapons by order in council on January 1, that was the first time it had ever done such a thing. I would like to know how much it will cost the government to refund those firearms and how many firearms and crossbows have been returned since then?

[English]

Mr. Mosley: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to ask Jim Hayes to respond to that.

The Chair: Good.

Mr. Hayes: Mr. Chairman, the number of firearms that we have now received receipts from the local firearms registrar of police are 19. Our anticipated number at one point was estimated to be about 28. There are a number of firearms that were part of that prohibition - and therefore were required to turn them in - that were shotguns and, in our best efforts to advise, a few of those have been turned in, but it's uncertain how many of them are owned out there. All we do is have estimates from the industry.

The moneys that we are looking at: one was estimated at about $150; another one was a higher performance firearm and in the range of about $2,000. We are working with RCMP forensic to establish the market value at the time that the order came into effect. We will proceed shortly to refund those who had submitted a claim for the firearm that they have turned in and have it validated. The cheque would be sent directly to the person who has made the claim.

[Translation]

Mrs. Venne: Unfortunately, I did not hear part of your answer, for which I apologize. I was wondering whether you answered my question regarding the number of crossbows that have been turned in?

[English]

Mr. Hayes: I can provide the list of that later once we have validated the numbers and the types of firearms that have been turned in and the exact amounts that would be paid.

[Translation]

Mrs. Venne: Yes, I would appreciate that. Thank you.

I would like to move on to clause 7. I would like to hear your interpretation of sub-clause b) which concerns the safety courses people who wish to obtain a firearms possession certificate will be required to take. How do you interpret this clause?

The problem is that depending on the lawyer I ask, I'm given a different answer. So, I would like to know whether you are in a position to state with certainty that someone wanting to possess a firearm will have to take a new firearms safety course, or whether that decision will be left up to the provincial attorney general?

I think this provision should probably be amended, as the meaning is not clear. I would be very interested to hear your comments on how it is to be interpreted.

.1000

[English]

Mr. Mosley: Mr. Chairman, both paragraphs 7.(1)(c) and 7.(1)(d) relate to the fact that following the adoption of Bill C-17 under the implementation of the Canadian firearms safety course, the attorneys general in several provinces, notably Quebec and Manitoba, grandfathered persons who had previously completed hunters' safety training courses administered by the province.

Paragraph 7.(1)(c) relates to completion of the course and paragraph 7.(1)(d) to passing the test. It would permit those individuals to continue to qualify to hold a licence on the basis that they had successfully completed such a course or passed such a test. In effect, it is bringing the class of persons who qualify during that period of time into the scheme, the norm of that scheme being the successful completion of the Canadian firearms safety course.

[Translation]

Mrs. Venne: Is my time up?

The Chairman: Yes.

Mrs. Venne: I will have another question later about the safety course.

[English]

Mr. Lee (Scarborough - River Rouge): I want to talk about the reverse onus provisions set out in proposed section 117.11.

I note that the reverse onus provision applies to a number of proposed sections, but not proposed section 92. Proposed section 92 says it's an offence to possess a firearm knowing that you don't have an authorization to possess it.

I think I understand why it was deleted from proposed section 117.11. That would be because the only element of the offence is that you possessed a firearm without a permit.

However, proposed sections 91 and 92 are virtually identical and the essential element of both offences is possessing a firearm without a permit. In each case they are treated differently, but in one of them, with the reverse onus provision, you are causing in effect the accused to prove that he or she is innocent. It's simply necessary to go to court, charge the offence and apply the reverse onus provision.

Can you explain why proposed sections 91 and 92 are treated differently in relation to reverse onus?

Mr. Mosley: Mr. Chairman, I have with me Irit Weiser who is Senior Counsel and, as indicated, is instructing officer on the bill. If I could, I would ask her to respond to that question.

Ms Irit Weiser (Senior Counsel, Criminal Law Policy, Department of Justice): Proposed section 117.11 duplicates section 115 of the existing Criminal Code.

That section was tested before the Supreme Court of Canada in a case called Regina v. Schwartz where the court concluded that the reverse onus was justified because of the nature of gun legislation and also because it was easily within the capability of the accused to demonstrate possession of documents.

The reason we did not extend that reverse onus to proposed section 92 - and there are a couple of other offences as well - is because mandatory minimums were added in Bill C-68. There was a concern that combining a reverse onus with a mandatory minimum might raise charter concerns.

Mr. Lee: Thank you.

Next, on the business of manufacturing and exporting firearms, as I read the provisions of this bill, a manufacturer of any type of firearm would first have to register. This would be a case where the firearm was going to be exported. Before you get an export permit under this statute, you have to have the registration certificate for the firearm.

.1005

There were two firearms manufacturers who came before us who export a very large percentage of their product. So they've got to register the firearm. Then they've got to get an export permit from External Affairs. Then they've got to get an export authorization under this statute. They then have to find a licensed carrier, of whom there are none at the moment. There is some doubt as to whether or not carriers will want to get licensed to carry this particular type of product, of which there is not a large volume. Then they've got to get a U.S. import permit and then, son of a gun, we don't have to deregister the weapon when it's exported because it's no longer in Canada.

That seems terribly cumbersome and I'm wondering why we wouldn't deal with this the same way we deal with all of the automobiles that we manufacture and register here and license. Why wouldn't we exempt from registration the inventory of firearms which were to be exported?

The Chair: They said, by the way, since most of their product went to the United States, they may just move down there to avoid all this bureaucratic red tape.

Mr. Mosley: I think we also heard that, Mr. Chairman, immediately during the C-17 hearings some years ago, but if I may, with regard to Mr. Lee's -

Mr. Lee: I assume, Mr. Chairman, your editorial comment and the reply are not to be taken out of my time.

The Chair: Not at all.

Mr. Lee: Thank you.

Mr. Mosley: If I may, one of our objects with regard to setting up the registration system is to eliminate as many of the administrative problems such as have been described by Mr. Lee or described by the witnesses in their appearances.

I would like to call perhaps on the director of implementation for the Firearms Control Task Group to comment on that, Henry Vanwyk. Mr. Vanwyk, by the way, is a senior officer of the Ontario Provincial Police on secondment to the Department of Justice and is a former chief provincial firearms officer for the Province of Ontario.

One point before I do that is that from the outset of the design of the policy in this area, it has been felt important to ensure that registration occur at the first possible point at which the firearm is either manufactured or introduced into Canada.

Mr. Henry Vanwyk (Director of Implementation, Firearms Control Task Group, Justice Department): Mr. Chairman, one of the things we're looking at is to capture the information at the assembly line so that the entry of the information of the firearm in effect goes straight into the registry.

In respect to the permit process, we are also looking at computerization between departments so that we are away from the paperless system and that the information could quickly flow to those who might approve. Indeed, there is a possibility that on routine transactions of that nature that the information as entered could be put against a set of validation tables which could perhaps in a hour or two provide you with the necessary paperwork.

In respect to your term ``deregister'', it's really an electronic notification that the firearms have left the country. We're not talking here about - and this is a proposal; the system is not yet built - we're not talking here about a long and lengthy mandatory paper trail that could cause manufacturers some concern.

Mr. Lee: I've just outlined a huge paper trail. You're indicating there's some thought about consolidating it and streamlining it, but in fact you've got to register the gun and then you've got to get a certificate. The manufacturer of the firearm has got to be in possession of a certificate, not an electronic entry. You may be thinking about computerization, but the statute says that he has got to have the certificate. So then you go through all the other steps I've mentioned and at some point you've got to give up the certificate and at some point you've got to pull the firearm off the registered system. While you make light of all of this, out in the real world - beyond your flow charts on the piece of paper that you have - there is somebody who's trying to make a living. There are 130 people working at one facility and another 100 or so working at another. Apparently, their jobs depend on the ability of their employers to get through this maze of paperwork, and you haven't told me anything today that reassures me that there isn't a maze of paperwork there.

.1010

Mr. Mosley: If I may, Mr. Chairman, there are just a further couple of points on that, and one is that the bill does provide for certificates to be issued in electronic form.

Secondly, the registrar of firearms will be co-ordinating both the registration of the firearm and the export permit.

The third point, of which Inspector Buisson was kind enough to advise me, is that currently every motor vehicle manufactured in Canada, including those which are intended for export immediately, is registered with the motor vehicles branch, upon its manufacture and prior to export.

I'm sure we can resolve the types of administrative concerns that Mr. Lee has responded to through the use of modern technology.

The Chair: The committee might want to pursue this further with the minister.

Mr. Ramsay, for five minutes.

Mr. Ramsay: I'd like to follow up on the acquisition certificate issue, dealing with the question of mental health. Perhaps I should ask Mr. Mosley this question.

Inasmuch as we have had witnesses from the medical profession indicate to us that there is a desire within their profession to be able to pass on information concerning the state of the mental health of a patient to the authorities, if they believe that that condition poses a threat to either the individual or to others, is there anything in this bill, including clause 5, that would enhance the ability of the chief firearms officer to seek that kind of information?

Mr. Mosley: I don't believe there is. But if I could expand on that answer I'd say this: this is a matter of considerable concern to the minister and the department and we have been engaged in a fairly intensive round of consultations with medical professionals to find a way to achieve that object, but unfortunately, that process could not be completed in time for a result to be reflected in Bill C-68. I think there is a shared recognition of the need to resolve the privacy issues that relate to that question and to find a way to enable the medical authorities to provide that kind of information.

Mr. Ramsay: I'm sure that there is no one here on the committee or anywhere in the country who wants to see people who are experiencing mental health problems, and who may be dangerous to themselves or others, have possession of firearms. Therefore, it seems to me that this is one of the weaknesses of the bill, if we are looking at a health and public safety question.

So when we look at clause 5, is what you have just said... the intent of the extension of clause 5 by the government, an intent to expand, through regulation, the power of the chief provincial firearms officer to be able to access information that would enable him to keep firearms out of the hands of people who are experiencing mental health problems?

.1015

Mr. Mosley: Now, Mr. Chairman, I can't speak for the government's intent on this matter.

I have described a process that we've engaged in to try to find a way to respect the privacy issues that are at stake with regard to - to relate them - the doctor-patient relationship and the nature of the information that is conveyed in confidence from the patient to the doctor. I can tell you that we've had very encouraging results in our discussions with the medical authorities, and we hope to bring those to a conclusion in the near future.

We would then provide our advice to ministers, the Minister of Justice, of course, and he and his colleagues would then have to determine whether they would as a matter of policy bring forward such a provision. I can't speak about what might be the outcome of those deliberations.

I want to indicate that we fully share the concerns that have been expressed about the need to address that issue, but I doubt that it can be resolved over the course of the next week or two. Quite frankly, I think it may well be an issue that is beyond the scope of the bill and that the committee might not be able to address by way of amendment to the bill, but of course that's a matter within your prerogative.

The Chair: You have one more question.

Mr. Ramsay: Alright, then I guess I should go to the people who are in the field dealing with the problem.

I would ask our chief firearms officers, if they have evidence, if through the filling out of the application there is there is an indication of a mental health problem, would you prefer to see some type of legislation that would allow you to request a waiver or permission to seek information from the doctor or from the medical file sufficient to serve your needs to protect the public with regard to the issuance of a FAC, or under this new bill, the licence to own a firearm?

Mr. Mathias: Let me answer, for British Columbia at least, in this way. We currently have that capacity for people who are applying for or hold motor vehicle licences. There is an agreement between our superintendent of motor vehicles and the B.C. Medical Association, and there is - I don't know the proper word - a memorandum of understanding, or the equivalent to that, for how that issue is handled. I think a similar provision would be reasonable in this instance, yes.

Mr. Ramsay: And your...?

Mr. Kramers: Even under the present provisions of section 106(9), it still depends on the graciousness of the medical people whether or not they volunteer that information.

We have had cases where psychiatrists have actually contacted our office in confidence and said that this person was in and may be a firearm owner, and that they didn't think the person should possess a firearm and provided us with that information.

Again, in some cases, in the two cases I dealt with, neither person presently held a firearm. We made note of that person's identity on our system so that if an application did come forward, I would catch it at my office and then go back to the police agency that was processing the FAC application so that they could perhaps contact the medical people to ascertain further information.

Mr Ramsay: So you are getting some medical...

Mr. Kramers: We are getting some on a volunteer basis. It's limited, but it certainly would be helpful.

Mr. Ramsay: Okay, thank you.

The Chair: Mr. Wappel, you have five minutes.

Mr. Wappel (Scarborough West): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I wonder if you would be so kind as to put me down for a second round if there is such a time. There's no way we're going to get through my questions in five minutes.

The Chair: Sure, I'll do that.

Mr. Wappel: For the purposes of the people sitting in the back, I'll be asking about sections 10 and 95 of the firearms act, and also section 117.15 of part III of the Criminal Code. But before I do, could I ask RCMP Officer Kaine - I forget your rank, sir - I'll call you inspector, to come up here and answer a question for me in follow-up to the chairman's questions.

.1020

I just want to follow up on your analogy about the counterfeit bill. One presumes the purpose of this act is to register every firearm in Canada. If the local RCMP officer in a small town comes across a 67-year-old grandmother with a rifle in the closet, that officer may not want to lay a charge and quite probably would exercise the discretion not to lay such a charge. How does that officer ensure that the purposes of the act are met and that rifle is registered?

Supt Kaine: I'm not familiar with every section of the act, but it seems to me that he does have the authority to seize that weapon if he feels it is found in inappropriate circumstances and that it might be a danger to someone. For instance, if the lady didn't know that she had the weapon, she may be quite willing to turn it over to the authorities. In fact, I understand that is a fairly common occurrence, and somebody from our firearms area may be able to give us some notion of how often that does occur.

Mr. Wappel: Is there anything equivalent in the current legislation if someone hasn't registered something?

Insp Buisson: We're dealing with a fair amount of amnesties that have been given across the country where people are actually given the opportunity to turn in firearms without charges and this is being done as a matter of course in all provinces by all chief firearms officers.

Mr. Wappel: Would it be fair to say, in the situation that I have described, that what you'd be thinking of is basically, you might say, giving a warning or giving a friendly ultimatum that we expect you to show us within a period of time that you've registered the 22 or we may consider laying charges?

Supt Kaine: That may be a reasonable response, yes.

Mr. Wappel: That's obviously within the discretion of the officers.

Supt Kaine: Yes, I believe so.

Mr. Wappel: Okay, thanks very much.

I want to ask somebody who knows something about section 10 of the Firearms Act dealing with carriers. Who knows about that? Who was involved with negotiating with the carriers?

The Chair: On each occasion when you come to the table could you give your name and also when you're answering a question give your name so that on the record we'll make sure who answered the question.

Mr Wappel: Mr. Vanwyk, it's my understanding that section 10 requires every carrier that's going to transport firearms to be licensed. I believe section 71 specifies that there are certain things that a carrier has to do. What kind of consultation took place with carriers prior to this section being drafted?

Mr. Vanwyk: Very little consultation took place with actual carrier companies.

Mr. Wappel: Why would that be? Don't you think it's rather important that if we're going to have compliance without wiping people out of business that there should have been some consultation with the carriers who would be expected to transport these Canadian manufactured products outside of Canada? That to me seems like the logical thing to do before you go imposing all kinds of regulations and restrictions and requirements on international carriers.

Mr. Vanwyk: Indeed there are carriers that are approved now for purposes for what's known under Bill C-17 as the industrial purposes provisions.

There have been a number of problems with carriers. As the CPFO of Ontario, my former life, there was a report of an individual who came home to find his kids playing in a yard and a carrier - the courier company, North American Wide - had just dropped off a restricted firearm and left it on the front step. You might be familiar in Hamilton where a McMaster University student, I believe, was killed from a shipment that was sent to a dealer in another part of Ontario and that went missing after the firearm entered into Canada.

.1025

Carriers generally don't appear to know, and in some cases aren't interested in, what the law should be. We've had unconfirmed reports that, when people do not pick up firearms and other items, the carriers auction them off, including without benefit of firearms licence.

Mr. Wappel: Mr. Vanwyk, I presume they're unconfirmed reports because you haven't consulted with these people. Otherwise, you would be able to confirm it.

Mr. Vanwyk: We did not consult at the point after my arrival here.

Mr. Wappel: We've been told - and I view the evidence as credible - from a manufacturer in Scarborough in the riding of my friend, Mr. Lee, that 95% if not more of their product is exported to the United States or abroad. They must have a carrier to take it out of the Scarborough plant to outside the borders of Canada.

They are concerned that there will not be an international carrier in Canada who will bother to go through the procedures set out because the market for the product being produced is infinitesimal in terms of the capacity of the carrier, let's say, but very, very substantial in terms of the price.

This particular company has a contract with the FBI. It employs a number of people in Scarborough. If it can't get the weapon to the FBI, it loses the contract obviously. It is very concerned that it will not be able to get a carrier because no carrier is going to bother, for the volume of shipments, to go through the rigmarole in this bill.

I'm amazed that there would have been no consultation on this point, when you're potentially wiping out a business which is employing people in Canada.

Mr. Vanwyk: The primary focus in setting up a licensing scheme is to find out who they are so that we might present them with the information as to what their responsibilities are.

It is similar to another carrier recently that left an unguarded truck in a yard in Thunder Bay and a number of firearms intended for police in Kenora went missing. These things get handed off to sub-carriers' sub-carriers and we keep on going. There has to be some kind of -

Mr. Wappel: But, sir, there are not many manufacturers of restricted weapons in Canada. They currently know whom they use as carriers to get their product out of Canada. A simple telephone call to the president of these manufacturers would have told you who the carriers were. A telephone call to them and a little bit of consultation might have alleviated a lot of concern.

The Chair: Mr. Wappel, the time has expired, but you are free to pursue this further. However, it seems to me this is the sort of question we have to pursue with the minister as well. The minister bears the ultimate responsibility for what consultation is done or not.

Mr. Wappel: I agree with you, Mr. Chairman, and I know the minister is a very brilliant man, but he can't possibly think of everything all the time. That's why he has officials.

The Chair: I know, but.... You raised it and I allowed them to answer. I think, though, that it's a matter I would like to see pursued with the minister.

Mr. Mosley: If I may, Mr. Chairman, I think we could offer some additional information.

Ms Weiser: I have to apologize to Henry. There were some consultations with carriers, including Canada Post, that were conducted by a former colleague of mine. The reasons for licensing carriers derived from the kinds of incidents that Mr. Vanwyk spoke about and there are confirmed incidents.

As well, there was a concern that there as a loophole in that, for example, if one looks at an underground syndicate, a courier company was an easy way to avoid the restrictions that would otherwise apply to dealers or to firearms owners.

At the same time, it was recognized that we had to provide flexibility for carriers. So, the scheme is set up in a way that allows a chief firearms officer to investigate the carrier company to make sure that it meets safety standards and that it isn't a concealed, underground operation. However, we also have put in special provisions to make it easier for them. Primarily, employees of carrier companies do not need to be licensed.

One more point, I was advised by Inspector Buisson that the RCMP has already received three or four applications from carrier companies.

[Translation]

The Chair: Ms Venne.

Mrs. Venne: I would like to move on to discuss paragraph 7(1)c) because all we really need is to put a comma in here somewhere.

.1030

As regards the dates set out in this paragraph, the wording of the French version is not terribly clear because it states ``un cours agréé par le procureur général de la province où il a eu lieu'', and either we need to put a comma in there, or not have a comma and just continue on with ``au cours de la période commençant le 1er janvier 1993'' and so forth. That would mean that only courses taken between January 1, 1993 and December 31, 1994 would be eligible or considered valid for the purposes of obtaining a licence. So, I want to know how we are supposed to interpret this paragraph. I want to know whether courses taken before January 1993 in a given province, that have already been determined - as in the case of Quebec - by the Attorney General to be valid courses for the purposes of obtaining a firearms acquisition certificate - since we are referring to clause 106 - will in fact be valid for the purposes of obtaining a licence under paragraph 7(1)c)?

Mr. Roy (Senior General Counsel, Criminal Law Policy, Department of Justice): Well, Ms Venne, that is certainly the way I would interpret this clause. If you think adding a comma where you've indicated would make the wording clearer, that is certainly an option we may want to consider. But my reading of this clause leads me to the same conclusion that you have just stated.

Mrs. Venne: Well, it may just be a matter of adding a comma, this is an important issue, however, and I know that officials in Quebec are asking themselves the same question. So, I think a minor amendment will be required to ensure that everyone has the same interpretation of this clause.

Mr. Roy: I might just point out that I too received a couple of calls about this same clause from people who also were of the view that some clarification might be required. So, perhaps that is the kind of amendment the Department of Justice could put before the committee to clarify the intention of this particular paragraph.

Mrs. Venne: Fine. Thank you very much. Moving on to a completely different topic, I would like to know what mechanism will be used to identify shotguns or rifles that do not have a serial number. I would also like to know how much it would cost to add serial numbers or other forms of identification so that they could be differentiated.

[English]

The Chair: Is there someone who could answer that question? When the gun has no serial number or any other identifying marks, how do you register it?

Mr. Smith: As far as firearms that do not have serial numbers, the most straightforward way to put a number on a firearm is to hand-stamp it. Manufacturers of firearms will generally use some kind of an automated process to put a serial number on, but that works well only in a factory setting when you're putting a series of sequential numbers on a large volume of similar firearms.

As far as the costs are concerned, I don't know precisely what a gunsmith would charge an owner to put a serial number on. I don't imagine it would be terribly expensive, but I don't have a figure for you.

Mr. Mosley: If I could add to that answer, Mr. Chairman, the registration scheme will result a number for every individual firearm that is submitted for registration, including those that do not have a serial number on them. That firearms identification number will be unique for that firearm and it will not necessarily coincide with the serial number for that firearm.

.1035

The registration card that will go with the firearm will contain that firearm's identification number. The identification of the firearm itself, if it has no serial number, will be a function of a number of the identifying indicia of the firearm: make, model and location of manufacture, if that information is known.

To assist the RCMP and provincial authorities in the identification of the individual types of firearms, the force is working on the development of a CD-ROM-based system that will ultimately, I understand, contain information and actual photographs of up to some 35 000 different variants of firearms, which will be readily searchable by firearms officers.

Perhaps Inspector Buisson could comment further on that.

Insp Buisson: You're right, Mr. Mosley; a few months ago we started the creation of a firearms imaging system for two purposes.

Purpose number one is to support the registration of restricted weapons according to actual laws or future laws, whatever they may be. Purpose number two is to support our investigators in the field, who are called upon, sometimes with very little expertise in the firearms field, to identify certain firearms and ensure that charges are laid or not laid, depending on the legal nature of the firearm.

The imaging system we're creating will contain approximately 5 000 restricted weapons, which are contained in part 4 of the National Firearms Manual. It will also contain all weapons or firearms prohibited by Order in Council. Once we've accomplished this task, we plan to start having pictures as well as full data on all sporting firearms, including long guns or military-type firearms that can be carried by individuals.

We have about 1,000 pictures taken thus far, which are also accompanied by the proper data as well as additional descriptions if and when necessary.

Ms Torsney (Burlington): I have several questions. I hope I can just put them all on the table and we can get the appropriate people to answer them.

First, I've been asked by constituents who compete in target shooting for a change in the definition of 105 centimetres. One request was from an individual who is male but has very small wrists and therefore has to target shoot with a smaller gun.

I wonder if there's some possibility of some kind of medical exemption or something within the system as it's currently set up for those specific people who don't in fact want to have Saturday night specials to use for crime. They actually do target shoot, whatever the restrictions could be.

Second, I continually hear that in spite of the fact that nobody's gone into the Revenue Canada taxation computers and figured out how much money I have in my house, this system is going to be attacked. Criminals somehow are going to break into the computer system and then target the homes across the country that have the guns in them.

It sounds like quite an organization. I'm not sure if some of our other departments have managed to break into that organization, but I would like to have some comment on the security of the computer system.

One of the other comments from a gun owner in my riding was that when we register all the guns, we should be keeping on file somewhere - and perhaps the CD-ROM would be the way to do it - a sample test of a bullet from that gun to make sure we have on file all the markings from the specific barrel. It would be similar to an international fingerprint registration system.

Again, I'm not sure where we would keep all those or whether we could put them into the CD-ROM or image them somehow, but that's something a gun owner in my riding wants us to do.

The other question I have for the Revenue Canada people is with regard to the borders. There is a feeling that we should be doing more to inspect individual cars for guns that are coming across. I appreciate that there are some logistical problems in terms of trade and tying up the borders, with what the volume is across our borders, but we do need some more mechanisms, particularly in the Jonathon Yeo system.

.1040

He was refused entry into the United States, was deemed never to have left Canada, and the Revenue Canada officials seemed not to be able to detain him on anything. Again, he had a gun. He was allowed to have a gun. He didn't need an FAC. Of course, Jonathon Yeo killed a young woman from Burlington and another woman from New Brunswick.

Those are my four or five questions. You can answer them in whatever order you'd like.

Mr. Mosley: I'll try the one about barrel length. There is an exemption provided in the bill for competitive shooting purposes so that the firearm that individual actually uses may well fall within the scope of that exemption.

With regard to security of the system, I think we could call on colleagues from the RCMP, and also colleagues from the department who are involved in the design, to talk about the steps that will be taken to try to protect against that.

With respect to the proposal about tracking bullets, similar to the fingerprint system, I believe there is technology - developed in Montreal, actually - that does allow for the unique pattern of the bullets fired by a particular firearm to be recorded in a database and made readily accessible for comparative purposes. I think that is of particular value to law enforcement officers where they have recovered both the bullet from the scene of the crime and the firearm with which to compare by shooting a bullet from it.

The difficulty is in expanding that type of system to a universal system in Canada. The cost and administrative inconvenience I think would make it, at this point in time, not feasible.

Perhaps I could turn to Mr. Connolly to talk about Revenue Canada's border controls.

Ms Torsney: Just before you do that, I also wanted the RCMP, who followed the smuggling issues and what have you, to identify... One constituent raised the fact that this will do nothing to combat crime; it will actually increase the value of illegal guns in Canada. Certainly you can answer that when you're answering your other questions.

Mr. Mark Connolly (Director, Enforcement Operations Division, Revenue Canada): I believe your first question referred to increased inspections of vehicles crossing the border. We introduced our anti-smuggling initiative last year. Since then we have increased enforcement and examinations by more than 25% in Revenue Canada to combat all types of smuggling.

Obviously, we've upgraded our facilities, our equipment and our training to carry out these searches. Recently we upgraded our introduction of what we call our ``primary automated lookout system'', or PALS. PALS is a technology that uses licence-plate readers to read licence plates when vehicles cross the border. It digitizes that information, sends it to a database, and if that person is wanted, has a warrant or is on our lookout system, then it will identify that person and that person will be referred to secondary.

So we are increasing our examinations. We have been doing that since the minister announced the anti-smuggling initiative in February of 1994.

With respect to the Criminal Code powers of customs officers, as the law sits today, Revenue Canada customs inspectors only have the authority as peace officers under the administration of Customs and Excise legislation. They do not have Criminal Code powers outside of that legislation.

In the case you mentioned, that of Jonathon Yeo, it was a very tragic situation, but the situation in terms of our officers' powers of authority has not changed since that time. We still do not have the authority to arrest or detain individuals at the border for Criminal Code offences outside of our legislation.

.1045

There is a study underway by a former deputy minister of justice. That study is complete, or just about complete, and a report will be tabled with our minister with respect to the pursuit of additional authorities and Criminal Code powers for customs inspectors. That is something that is being looked at today.

Supt Simpson: I cannot speak of what will be; I can only speak of what is. I don't know the architecture or design of the system.

In 1972, CPIC system came on-line to provide service to the Canadian police community. Since then we have not had a successful technical violation.

How many attempts there have been? I honestly do not know. We have not had a hacker get into the CPIC system to date.

Mr. Torsney: So you're confident.

Supt Simpson: Yes.

I know that it can be done. We have been and are living with the kind of security technology installed in the system in the early 1970s. It's still providing a shell of protection there today. As hackers' intelligence and capabilities grow, so too our ability to protect information we want protected.

Ms Meredith (Surrey - White Rock - South Langley): I'd like to deal with sections 103 and 104.

My constituency has two of the busiest border crossings in western Canada, the Pacific and the Douglas crossing. We've spoken to customs officials on a number of occasions. On one of these occasions we were talking about American tourists bringing in handguns, for whatever purposes.

Most of the firearms crossing the border are brought in by tourists who do not acknowledge they have these firearms. I believe they're in the 200-to-300 range during the summer months. Presently, as I understand it, customs officials seize the weapon and the vehicle. A serious fine is instituted for the return of their vehicle. They do not get their firearm back.

My concern is sections 103 and 104. We are not talking about seizing vehicles and firearms and fining them, we're talking about potentially incarcerating them and giving them a criminal record.

Do you not see a problem here?

Mr. Connolly: It's quite correct most of the firearms Revenue Canada seizes at the border come from persons who normally possess these weapons legally in the United States. They're truck drivers, some hunters, but mostly travellers.

It is mandatory Revenue Canada asks non-residents whether they are carrying any weapons, handguns or firearms with them when they enter the country. You're quite right that not everyone declares them.

When we do seize a firearm under the Customs Act, we do seize the vehicle and the firearm at the same time. Today, under the Customs Act, the penalty for having a firearm in Canada or bringing in a firearm is normally $500 a weapon. Terms of release are sometimes offered and the person exports the firearm back to the United States.

Normally, when we have a handgun seizure, the process today - and it'll be the process tomorrow, as I understand it - is we contact our local police agency which is responsible for that particular border area and give them the information based on the customs seizure. The decision is taken at that time whether or not to lay a charge under the Criminal Code. Each case is looked at it on its own merit, and most often Criminal Code charges are not laid when these people bring firearms into Canada.

.1050

Ms Meredith: So you're telling me there will be discretion, the discretion is at the local police level, and it will not be consistent across this country.

Mr. Connolly: Under the current legislation, under this bill, customs officers will not have the authority to arrest persons and charge them with firearms offences. We will continue to operate under the Customs Act, making seizures on firearms, and we will continue to contact police authorities for them to pursue any prosecutions warranted.

Ms Meredith: So any American tourist coming up here who is found with a firearm in their possession will be reported to the local police station, and that local police station will make the determination as to whether or not criminal charges will be laid for the illegal importation of a firearm. This is not going to be a consistent policy across this country, because the local police will be making that determination.

Mr. Connolly: I don't think I can comment on whether or not it would be consistent across the country, because that is a decision that would be taken outside of Revenue Canada's authority.

Ms Meredith: Is the existing process consistent across the country with the possession or seizure of the vehicle and the firearm? Is that consistent currently, without this legislation, across the country?

Mr. Connolly: Under normal circumstances, yes, it is consistent across the country. We have guidelines out to our officers that give them specific instructions on dealing with firearms seizures. It depends on the region of Canada. There are certain areas of Canada where charges are taken to court and other areas where charges are not taken to court. We have noticed some differences, but no major differences at all.

Mr. Mosley: I'd just point out that proposed subsections 103.(3) and 104.(3) do provide that proceedings in respect of an offence under these two sections:

may be commenced at the instance of the Government of Canada and conducted by or on behalf of that government.

This is a somewhat anomalous provision in the Criminal Code in general, because normally the rule is that by virtue of the definition of Attorney General in section 2 of the Criminal Code, all proceedings under the Criminal Code are conducted by the Attorney General of the respective province. These proposed subsections give the Attorney General of Canada the authority to conduct these proceedings.

That will, I believe, address the problem of consistency if consistency does develop into a concern across the country.

Ms Meredith: Then I would ask you, sir, is it the intent of the federal government to charge these tourists with a criminal charge of illegal importation if they are warned...? My understanding is that currently they are asked three times if they have a firearm in their possession. If they acknowledge it, they are given alternative ways to deal with it, but if they deny it three times, the vehicle is then searched and they're found in possession of it, the process goes ahead.

I would like to know if it's the federal government's desire, through this legislation, to now charge these American tourists with criminal convictions.

Mr. Mosley: There is a definite intent, as expressed when the action plan was announced on November 30, to get tough on the smuggling of firearms. The bill provides an expanded range of options to the enforcement authorities, in effect a cascading range of options, which at the most serious level would provide for a prosecution and a conviction with a mandatory minimum one-year term of imprisonment.

That's proposed section 103. Beneath that is proposed section 104. I should add that proposed section 103 would apply when there is a knowing breach of the statute, when the individual has deliberately chosen to attempt to evade the controls on the importation of firearms. Proposed section 104 could also be employed by the law enforcement authorities where there is not clear evidence of an intent but evidence that the individual knew he/she had a firearm in their possession.

.1055

At the lowest level, or perhaps a notch below that, of course, are the existing provisions under the Customs Act which could be employed by customs authorities under their discretion. Finally, at the lowest level, the law enforcement authorities have the discretion not to proceed against a particular individual, depending on the circumstances.

So there is a scale and a range of options which this bill will now provide from decision effectively not to take action, not to prosecute, to a decision to prosecute the matter as a very serious offence with serious consequences.

The Chair: Mrs. Barnes. You have five minutes.

Mrs. Barnes (London West): I think I would like to direct this to our legislative legal counsel. I am assuming that at some stage you would have had input into reviewing the drafting of sections of the bill?

Ms Weiser: Yes.

Mrs. Barnes: Could you explain to me whether it was an oversight or if there was some reason and I'm referring to the section powers in clause 99.(1) and then the search and seizure powers under 117.02(1) - you probably don't have to look at them - but I want to put on the record where its found; 117.04(1) and (2); in all of these instances the wording has been ``reasonable grounds'' as opposed to ``reasonable and probable grounds'' which most people are more comfortable with.

I think the fact that we haven't used the word ``probable'' in there has created some fear that we're doing something less than is constitutional. Could you address why you have done it this way and if it's inadvertent or, from my point of view, why you would have any concern if we added in those words to all of those sections ``reasonable and probable''?

Mr. Mosley: Mr. Chairman, I think I have somewhat more knowledge of that matter than my colleague and with your concurrence, I'll address it.

Mrs. Barnes: That's fine.

The Chair: Sure.

Mr. Mosley: This decision to delete the use of ``and probable'' was actually made back in the early 1980s following a review of federal statutes which we conducted in 1983 which then led to a decision by the Statute Revision Commission leading to the publication of the Revised Statutes of Canada 1985.

The review of the federal statutes and the pertinent jurisprudence disclosed that there was a wide range of forms of expressing what was essentially a single legal concept i.e. the need for objective grounds upon which to found a decision by a law enforcement officer or a judicial officer such as a justice of the peace.

The authorities support that proposition and I'll refer to one case which is a 1993 judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada in a case called Baron against Canada. The reasons for judgment of Mr. Justice Sopinka at page 446 of the report which and I'll quote:

In my view, nothing turns on the omission of the word probable from the section in question. The standard that the subsection sets out is one of credibly-based probability which is the standard required by section 8 of the charter.

As a consequence of the 1983 review, Mr. Chairman, every statute which has been drafted by the Department of Justice which has the form of words which relates to this issue now follows the same form as found in Bill C-68. The matter has been addressed by parliamentary committees over the course of the past 10 years on a number of occasions and in each case the committee determined that the new approach was preferable.

Mrs. Barnes: Thank you. It's nice to have that clarified. There is something else I don't understand why we need it and it is on page 50 of the bill. It talks about an exception for minor changes. Again, I think people always fear the unknown. I really don't understand. I'll just read it quickly. It says:

A regulation made under section 110 may be made without being laid before either House of Parliament if the federal Minister is of the opinion that the changes made by the regulation to an existing regulation are so immaterial or insubstantial that section 111 should not be applicable in the circumstances.

.1100

My point is that if something is so insubstantial or so immaterial, why are we dealing... I just don't understand why we need this section. I think it should be removed. It creates fear in people and can you give me some reasons why it should be there?

Ms Weiser: Thank you, Mr. Chair. As you're aware, the process for passing most regulations under the act is to require a 30-day sitting period. There are times when we will find in a regulation a mistake in translation, a mistake in the date; it might be a mistake in a number, the width of a wire gauge for secure storage, for example. If we had to go through another 30-day sitting period just to make that change, we would delay needlessly the implementation of the regulations and it would also be a questionable use of Parliament's time.

Mrs. Barnes: That's my time?

The Chair: Yes. Madam Venne, five minutes.

[Translation]

Mrs. Venne: This regulatory authority under the act is huge. Take the issuance of licences. Here, I'm referring to section 110a), page 45 of the Bill, which states that the authority respecting the issuance of licences, registration certificates, and authorizations includes regulations prescribing the circumstances in which persons are not eligible to hold licences. By giving such an authority, do you not think that substansive criteria could be changed or that other criteria could be created which would substantially change the legislation? This is just one example.

[English]

Mr. Mosley: If I may, Madam Chair. There certainly is a broad regulatory authority provided in this bill. It was felt necessary to have such a range of authority because of the scope of the regulations that will be required to make the new system work. If each of these had been put into this bill which was already quite thick, the bill probably would have been two or three times its size.

The regulation-making authority also, as my colleague has indicated, for the most part with the minor exceptions that she referred to will be subject to the scrutiny of Parliament unlike most other federal statutes and their regulation-making authority which do not go through the same process, as you're aware, subject to the scrutiny by the joint committee of both houses.

The procedure in this bill is somewhat unique. There are other examples, of course, but it is somewhat unique. So each one of these regulations substantively will be presented to both Houses of Parliament for examination. In effect, it's a new form of delegated legislation which is subject to parliamentary scrutiny without necessarily going through hearings, or debate in the house unless members feel it appropriate to do so.

Our view, the department and minister, is that in order to make this scheme work in all of its aspects, it is absolutely essential to have this range of regulation-making authority in the bill.

[Translation]

Mrs. Venne: Could you tell us how far advanced you are in the drafting of the regulations? I would imagine that you will not wait until the morning when the Bill passes to start drafting them.

.1105

[English]

Mr. Mosley: Your supposition is quite correct. It will take a fair amount of time to draft these. We would hope to begin immediately - assuming the bill receives the approval of Parliament, following the report stage and third reading in this House - to draft the bills. Currently we are attempting to prioritize those that we think will need to be done first to bring in the phased implementation of the entire legislative package, those in particular that will relate to the implementation of the licensing scheme as of January 1, 1996.

Mr. Bodnar (Saskatoon - Dundurn): My question is for the officer who deals with CPIC and had answered Mr. Allmand's questions. It's Sergeant Simpson, I believe.

Supt Simpson: Superintendent.

Mr. Bodnar: I don't have a list here.

The Chair: You're in deep trouble, Bodnar.

I apologize for my colleague, Superintendent.

Mr. Bodnar: My name is Wappel.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh.

Mr. Bodnar: When you were asked the questions with respect to charges and dual offences, or hybrid offences, however you referred to them, you indicated that at times police officers would not fingerprint such individuals.

It's my understanding that on dual offences, the attorneys general of the provinces make the decision as to whether fingerprinting will be done, and on dual offences, fingerprinting is done 100% of the time. Correct?

Supt Simpson: Not that I'm aware of, sir. The availability is there on a dual-offence charge for the person who has been arrested or is being charged to be fingerprinted, but there is still a decision on the part of the arresting officer as to whether they are in fact going to fingerprint that individual.

Mr. Bodnar: But that matter goes to a prosecutor, and the prosecutor will not elect to proceed by a summary conviction procedure until the fingerprinting is completed.

Supt Simpson: In some provinces, yes; in other provinces, no.

Mr. Bodnar: What's the procedure in Ontario?

Supt Simpson: I'm not positive what the procedure is in Ontario.

Mr. Bodnar: Because in Saskatchewan the policy is to fingerprint everyone on dual offence.

Supt Simpson: My understanding is that in Saskatchewan that is the way. My understanding is that in Newfoundland, unfortunately, there is a great deal of discretion left with the arresting officer.

So there is a variance there. It's not always so.

Mr. Bodnar: So people who are fingerprinted are put on CPIC, and when they plead guilty, and if they're discharged, either conditionally or absolute, the authorities at the border have this information and can use it to refuse entry by Canadians into the United States.

Supt Simpson: They can have the information if they...if they have acquired it, yes, they have it.

Mr. Bodnar: It's my understanding as well that if a Canadian then obtains a pardon in a number of years, pursuant to the legislation, the Americans refuse to recognize our pardons and still refuse entry of Canadians into the United States. Correct?

Supt Simpson: I wouldn't want to say categorically that Americans refuse to accept the provisions of a pardon. I know there are some departments in the United States that are willing to talk to us about the availability of respecting them.

Conversely, the State of Florida has a zero tolerance policy on drugs. If anything comes to their attention with respect to somebody having been previously convicted of drugs, as far as the State of Florida is concerned that's bona fide information, and they will retain it within their data banks - and they do so.

Mr. Bodnar: Even if there is a pardon granted in Canada.

Supt Simpson: Correct.

Mr. Bodnar: In other words, they do not recognize our pardons -

Supt Simpson: They might not even know about it, sir. If there is some newspaper article, I am under the impression that the enforcement agencies in Florida have acted upon that type of information, that there's bona fide information in a newspaper article that a person was convicted of narcotics possession or some other drug charge. Because of their zero tolerance policy, Florida has taken action against that individual.

.1110

Mr. Bodnar: A Canadian convicted of not appropriately storing a firearm and receiving an absolute discharge, this person could, let's say in the province of Saskatchewan, be fingerprinted, be on CPIC and forever be barred from entering the United States, even though a pardon is obtained subsequent date?

Supt Simpson: If the American authorities made an inquiry with respect to that name while the conviction was still registered on CPIC, and the conviction did actually exist, then you are quite correct.

Mr. Mosley: For further clarification of that point, the CPIC system does not retain that information indefinitely. I think it may be important in terms of the time.

Mr. Bodnar: But the Americans maintain it once they take it off CPIC.

Supt Simpson: Yes. The information would have to be on CPIC. If the Americans get it, we try to work with a number of the American authorities. We have a good working relationship at the national level, but past that, no, there is no guarantee.

Mr. Hill (Prince George - Peace River): I'd like to address my questions concerning the cost of implementing this registration system.

It's my understanding the $10 initial cost, which I notice in the document jumps to a projected $60 by the year 2000, is based on a mail-in registration system. Is that true?

Mr. Mosley: Yes.

Mr. Hill: We have had forensic scientists, expert technical people, make presentations at this committee. They have suggested that without validation or visual verification, the make, model, barrel length, serial number, those types of things, the system will lack integrity. Obviously, if you're just going to rely totally on the honesty of individual firearms owners to mail in, it certainly follows there could be honest mistakes, as well as dishonest.

How would you suggest solving problem of ensuring the integrity of the registration system when you're basing the low cost of the system on a mail-in ballot?

Mr. Mosley: I believe the RCMP were asked to address that question when they appeared before the committee sometime ago.

I'd like to call on Henry Vanwyk about the integrity of the system that's under design.

If I understood the question, you also wanted some information about the costs of mail-in.

Mr. Hill: No, you've already answered my question. The low cost, the $10 cost, is based on it being a mail-in system.

My question now is, how are you going to ensure the integrity of the actual data collected and in the system is accurate if you don't look at the firearm?

Mr. Vanwyk: Whether or not the information comes in from a mail-in application or from a direct entry at a terminal in a firearms office, the information should still go against the validation table of known specifications from firearms manufacturers, especially with the knowledge certain firearms have to be eyeballed, if I may use that term, in each and every instance. There are others where there's a reasonable degree the owner can read. I believe Mr. Nielsen talked about more than half.

We hope with a mail-in application to have a booklet that could be used by persons filling in the mail-in application, perhaps something like your income tax instructions; with the validation tables, if there's anything wrong with what's submitted that it then be referred electronically to a local firearms officer for visual inspection.

.1115

There are other firearms that I believe Mr. Neilsen also mentioned as the military variety that, again, should be inspected perhaps by subject-matter experts. Further, there are firearms that should be submitted to the forensic labs, including home-made ones and others.

There's information on the database. Look at what we're calling the firearms registration certificate. In this age of computerization, this is just as much a file locator card as it is a registration certificate.

As for the information, until it has been eyeballed or examined, the computer entry should be marked as ``not yet verified''.

I refer you to a procedure that's used in Ontario in respect to suspended drivers. When you become a suspended driver, you go on the computer. CPIC has ``suspended driver not served''. It's not until one of the legal means or you get stopped by a police officer that you find out you are suspended. The computer entry is immediately changed to read ``suspended driver served''. This then becomes a verified entry.

For the issue of if the registrar were asked in respect of that firearm, which has a file -

Mr. Hill: If I could just interject, you're going to use up my whole five minutes with your answer.

What I think you're suggesting to me is that you will not consider that's it's verified or validated until.... There will be a flag on the computer on that particular firearm until it's visually inspected. Is that what I just heard?

Mr. Vanwyk: That is correct.

Mr. Hill: But the minister has assured us that because there's a concern across the country with the limited resources available to the police forces, policemen are not going to be spending a lot of time validating the registration of all these firearms. So how are you going to do that?

Mr. Vanwyk: The eyeballing, if I can use that term, is a good starting point -

Mr. Hill: Who's going to do the eyeballing?

Mr. Vanwyk: - and a good finishing point.

There are opportunities to eyeball if the police come across that firearm. There are opportunities for local firearms officers to do it.

If indeed the firearm is eyeballed, the matter would be so identified on the computer.

Mr. Hill: I find your suggestion absolutely astounding. This whole thing is supposedly based on cost recovery, such that we'll be able to do this for between $10 and $60 and verify that this firearm that's actually in the computer system is indeed the one that's registered to that owner.

Is it your understanding that we can do that for the costs that are in this document? I refer to this document here that you people put forward today.

Mr. Mosley: Perhaps I can respond to that. The expectation is that the vast majority of firearms submitted are not going to cause any difficulty in terms of identification. The system is not going to register any concerns about whether the information is valid or not.

If it's a matter in which it's a clear problem with the information that's submitted, it may be sufficient simply to refer it back and have someone pick up the phone and call the applicant to inquire whether they made a mistake. Did they put the model name instead of the manufacturer's name when they filled out the form? That is not going to take a lot of time and effort on the part of the local firearms officers.

In terms of the verification, the firearm will still be registered with the information provided by the individual to that individual's name.

.1120

What Mr. Vanwyk is talking about is that if, for any reason, at some point in the future, a police officer, conservation officer or someone out in the field comes across the individual with that firearm and notes the registration certificate and the nature of the firearm and simply sends a computerized response into the registrar, then the system will acknowledge that somebody has checked at some point.

It's not being suggested at all that law enforcement authorities are going to have to go out to verify all of these registrations. That is simply not feasible.

The system itself will have safeguards built in to kick out those applications that need to be checked. But the rest of them will simply be entered as the information is provided by the applicant.

Mr. Gallaway (Sarnia - Lambton): I want to deal briefly with clauses 17 and 18, which are under the heading ``Authorized Transportation of Firearms''.

As I understand the operation of this section, a person who has a weapon as described in clause 18 can have a permit to transport that weapon between their residence and a gun club. But if, in fact, they want to vary the route and take it to a repair shop, they must then go to the nearest firearms officer and obtain another certificate to authorize them to transport that weapon to the repair shop. That's because it varies from the licence or the permit issued.

Now that the individual and the gun is registered - I guess in this class they already have been registered - what useful purpose is there in issuing such a specific carrying permit? What detriment or benefit to the department or the police force would there be if a general carrying permit were issued so that this person could transfer this weapon within a defined geographic area? For example, this could be in the province of Ontario or Newfoundland or wherever they reside.

What useful purpose can there possibly be to requiring an additional permit simply because they want to vary one block from the normal route they travel?

Mr. Mosley: I think it's fair to say that the controls on restricted firearms - this is what these apply to - since 1978 have very tightly controlled what you can do and where you can go with those firearms. In effect, clauses 17 and 18 are just continuing that regime.

Perhaps I could invite Ms Weiser or either of the two CPFOs who are familiar with the provincial administration of the permit scheme to comment.

I think there would be concerns that a generalized permit, such as what you suggest, might lead to abuses on the part of individuals who would take advantage of the opportunity that would be provided to them to carry a firearm with them on a regular basis and then give an explanation to any investigating officer they might encounter that they were on their way to the repair shop or some other place that might be contemplated by these permits.

Perhaps Ms Weiser might comment, as well as Mr. Mathias or Mr. Kramers.

Ms Weiser: I'll just make a couple of brief comments. One, it's worthy to note that the authorization to transport has been extended to three years. This was so that people who need them will face fewer administrative difficulties in having to renew them more often.

The provision does give firearms officers scope to issue authorizations to transport within a broad area, but it also leaves them the discretion to restrict that transport if they feel it's necessary.

.1125

I will turn to the chief provincial firearms officers to give you an idea of those circumstances.

Mr. Maarten Kramers (Chief Provincial Firearms Officer, Policing Services Division, Department of Justice, Halifax, Nova Scotia): I'm Maarten Kramers from Nova Scotia.

In reply to your question, authorization to transport are issued to members of approved gun clubs. If you vary from restriction, then it will lead to abuse, a lack of control. Presently, the process in place does just that; a permit to carry is issued only to and from approved gun clubs within the province. The other variance in Bill C-68 with the authorizations to transport that it's not only for three years, but it is my understanding that it would allow him to go through other provinces as well, which they do not.

But in order to have some control over gun club members so that the firearm is not with them at all times for no bona fide reason, it is necessary to have such a restriction in place.

Mr. Gallaway: If I could -

The Chair: I allowed the answer to the questions, but we're finished the time. Did you wish to answer, sir.

Mr. Henry C. Mathias (Chief Provincial Firearms Officer, Chief, Security Programs Division, Ministry of Attorney General, Victoria, B.C.): I am Henry Mathias from British Columbia. A similar concern at the provincial level is one of public safety. If a generalized permit were available, essentially, we would be unfettering the carrying of restricted weapons within the province. In my opinion, it would be very difficult for a police officer to stop somebody who happened to be in Chetwin who said they were actually just detoured from their home in Victoria to a gun club in Nanaimo for a shoot because they have a general permit.

We have argued and I think it's reflected in this bill that for the average user, or target shooter, that we should make it less onerous in terms of the need to renew and I think it reflects that. We don't need to keep coming back and doing that. But just to leave it open, essentially, we would be saying to folks - you can carry a handgun anywhere and it would be very difficult to enforce.

The Chair: Madam Venne.

[Translation]

Ms Venne: I have a question regarding paragraph q) of section 110 on page 48 of the bill. This section points out that regulations may be made waiving or reducing the fees payable to obtain a firearms registration licence.

I would like to know to whom this section will apply and what is the intent. Is it the counterpart of what we already find in the Criminal Code at paragraph 12 of section 106 which exempts from the firearms acquisition certificate fee a person who hunts or traps in order to sustain himself or his family? If that is the case, why do we have to proceed through regulation under Bill C-68 whereas it used to be under the Criminal Code?

[English]

Mr. Mosley: It will allow the Governor in Council to waive fees that might otherwise be payable by a sustenance hunter or trapper, but there may be other categories of individuals or institutions, museums, for example, who have suggested that the fees might be onerous in some circumstances. It might also permit the Governor in Council to waive or reduce the fees in such circumstances. This, of course, would be subject to the scrutiny of Parliament and the regulations under this provision would be tabled in the usual course of events for the examination of both houses.

[Translation]

Ms Venne: Why not simply state this applies to museums, or to people who trap? There is the feeling that we're hiding something. I think that it would be much simpler and much more open. That way, maybe a greater number of people would be happy with the bill.

[English]

Mr. Mosley: Well, at this point in time I don't think we can identify all of the potential individuals or institutions that might be affected for which there may be good reason to waive or reduce a fee.

.1130

The Chair: Moving back to the government side, we have now myself, Mr. Wappel and Mr. Lee who have asked for a second round. I want to get a second round in here.

These are questions relating to the consultation process with the James Bay Cree and the Council of Yukon Indians and I refer to the brief.

Right away I would like to have it confirmed by the deputy minister that the James Bay agreement, since it's a modern land claims settlement treaty, is part of the Constitution in accordance with subsection 35(3) of the Constitutional Act, 1982. Is that not correct?

Mr. Mosley: Yes, it's a treaty that contains treaty rights that are protected by section 35 of the Constitution.

The Chair: Okay.

In that James Bay settlement in ##article 24.3.12 it says that:

The right to harvest shall include the right to possess and use all equipment reasonably needed to exercise that right i.e. firearms with certain exceptions.

It says in article 24.3.18 that:

The exercise of the right to harvest shall not be subject to obtaining of permits, licences or other authorizations etc.

Then it says in article 24.4.29 that:

The coordinating committee may

(e) Make recommendations concerning weapon control where such control is directed to public security.

And in article 24.4.36 it says that:

Before submitting a new regulation or other decision for enactment or taking new action etc., the responsible provincial or federal minister shall consult with the coordinating committee etc.

And then in article 24.4.23 it says that:

The coordinating committee shall be a consultative body to responsible governments and as such shall be the preferential and exclusive forum for native people and governments jointly to formulate regulations and supervise the administration and management of the hunting, fishing and trapping regime.

Which by the way, contains the issue of guns and other matters.

This is a very specific treaty, part of our Constitution which requires consultation on matters relating to firearms as they affect hunting in the James Bay area. The consultation has to be with the hunting, fishing and trapping coordinating committee which is made up of the Cree, Naskapi, Inuit, the Quebec and federal governments.

I would like to know - if it's possible, if you can't answer that's fine - if in developing this legislation you followed this procedure, especially since it's very specific and it's part of the Constitution of Canada and in virtue of subsection 35.3 of the Constitution Act, 1982?

Mr. Mosley: I would note that article 24.4.36 concludes with the words:

...the whole subject to the provisions of paragraph 24.4.37 and subsection 24.12.

And included in subsection 24.12 I found the words, mid-way through the paragraph:

...the whole subject to applicable laws and regulations of general applications concerning weapon control where such control is directed to public security and not to harvesting activity.

Now I don't want to put excessive reliance in that of answer of a legalistic nature. The minister and the department accept the need to consult with aboriginal communities and, in particular, with aboriginal communities such as the James Bay Cree and the Council of Yukon Indians where there are express references to consultation in their treaty arrangements.

As the minister has indicated the consultation process really began a year ago. In the Council of Yukon Indians agreement for the four first nations, which at present have completed that process, there's a reference to notice, reasonable opportunity and so on.

.1135

As Mr. Rock has stated, the consultation process really began with the entire country a year ago and has been more specifically addressed to aboriginal persons, both during his cross-country tours... He met, for example, with the Council of Yukon Indians and more specifically beginning in December...

The Chair: Could I just interrupt you there? If you look at the four first nations who have settled under that Yukon agreement, in their agreement it says that the consultation is not with the CYI, but with the four nations whose treaties have become part of the Constitution with respect to the settlement.

In my view, the consultation with the CYI does not respect what is in the settlement. I don't know how you respond to that?

Mr. Mosley: It's an important distinction and you are quite right. Mr. Rock did meet with one of the four nations, the Teslin Tlingit, I believe, during that process.

My point was simply to indicate that it was the beginning of a process which he personally undertook a year ago which is continuing.

In December, immediately following the tabling of the government's action plan, we wrote to every aboriginal organization in the country and we have since undertaken an extensive, and I might add costly process of consultation, which will specifically focus on the four first nations of the Yukon and the James Bay Cree. We have had informal contact with them to make those arrangements.

Those more direct consultations have already begun. We have had a meeting with aboriginal leaders in New Brunswick and meetings have been undertaken in the eastern Arctic over the course of...

The Chair: Excuse me. I don't want to interrupt you again but I know there's consultations with aboriginal nations, generally. My questions are specifically with respect to treaties that have become part of our Constitution as a result of subsection 35.3, which is a much heavier burden, I think, than ordinary consultation.

In any case - my final question and I will move on - does the department believe that they've respected the requirements and the obligations in the James Bay treaty and in the four treaties that have been signed with the Yukon Indians? Do you maintain that you've respected the provisions for consultation in those treaties which are part of our Constitution now?

Mr. Mosley: To the extent, Mr. Chairman, that the process has been initiated and conducted thus far, yes, but it's not completed. Evidently, we have to follow through and to sit down with those specific first nations to complete that process of consultation.

The Chair: All right. I will move on to the next round. Mr. Ramsay, for five minutes and then Mr. Wappel.

Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Chairman, now that you have brought up the issue, I'm going to have to change my agenda a little bit and use up part of my time...

We had the witnesses from the James Bay Cree here. We had the witnesses from the Yukon here and, in particular, the James Bay delegation indicated clearly that there was no consultative process. They indicated clearly that as far as they were concerned there was a violation of the requirement to consult.

Now I was in touch with Grand Chief Blacksmith who appeared here. He phoned me last night and I asked him if there had been any consultation or any contact since his testimony before this committee. He said there was one phone call to one of their people from the Justice Department. When I inquired about the content of it, he said that all they wanted to know was whether or not the James Bay Cree are now in bed with the Reformers.

So I asked him if he would be willing to provide me with any documentation requesting consultation on this bill. He faxed me a brief of letters that is still at my office - I was going to have it here for 1 p.m. when we're discussing this motion, Mr. Chairman. I don't have it here. But he has assured me, as he has assured the committee, that there was no consultation of any degree.

.1140

So, I would ask the Deputy Minister this question. How in the world can we suggest for a moment that the consultative process, as demanded under the Constitution in compliance with the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement, has been complied with when the bill is before the House? It has received second reading. We've got one more week of hearings before we go into clause-by-clause and then the report stage and final reading.

The James Bay and Yukon people are asking when is it going to click in. When are they going to be consulted about something that affects their rights and that is guarantees by the constitution of this country? According to their testimony before us, they have had nothing whatever to do with this bill - no consultative input with regard to this bill.

I ask the Deputy Minister how he can claim this, when they are saying exactly the opposite and providing letter after letter to your department requesting consultation and they haven't even received a reply or acknowledgement of their letters?

There go my five minutes.

Mr. Mosley: It is extremely unfortunate that the the hunting, fishing and trapping coordinating committee has not received a response to its letter of August. That really is inexcusable and the department -

The Chair: You say that it's unfortunate that who didn't receive it? The Cree did not receive it?

Mr. Mosley: Yes, but it's the coordinating committee of the -

The Chair: They did not receive a answer to their letter of August.

Mr. Mosley: That's correct, yes. That clearly was a failure on the part of the department to manage the volume of correspondence that has come in over the course of the past year on this general area of firearms. I'll offer an apology through you, Mr. Chairman, to the committee. We'll certainly make that clear to them when we meet with them.

My main point, however, is that this is not a static process. There is not a stage in time at which consultation is complete and finalized. It is a dynamic process which is already beginning to inform our views with regard to the bill and, most importantly, it will inform the drafting of the regulations, including those regulations which are varied under the authority provided in paragraph 110.(1)(t) relating to aboriginal communities.

The application of this entire scheme will be informed by that consultation process which is currently under way through the regulatory process.

Another point I'd like to make is that implicit in the assertion being made by the hon. member is the conclusion that there will be an infringement of the rights set out in these agreements, the rights to harvest game and so on. Our departmental position is that the bill does not do that and that is the position that we will maintain.

Before a conclusion could be reached as to whether there was a constitutional infringement, a case would have to be presented on the specific facts of an individual situation, either relating to a person who is directly affected by the bill and/or the regulations or a collectivity of persons directly affected by it.

The consultations will continue and no doubt will inform the regulations which are submitted to Parliament for it's scrutiny, but that is something which cannot and could not have been completed between the time that the action plan was tabled on November 30 and today.

.1145

Mr. Wappel: Just on that point and so that you aware of it, one presumes that the Justice Department considers this an important bill and this issue has caused an absolutely unnecessary hurdle to be placed in front of the appropriate furtherance of this legislation. That hurdle could very easily have been overcome by a simple consultation back in August. It's very easy to cry over spilled milk, but one should bring it to the attention of the department that it should be very cognizant of the provisions of treaties, particularly modern treaties.

I want to talk about proposed section 111 of the Firearms Act which, as you mentioned, deals with the tabling of regulations before Parliament.

I got the impression from your original comments that this was somehow something unique, a new proposal or something that should allay the fears of people. Isn't clause 111 just a rehash of the current subsection 116(2) of the Criminal Code?

Mr. Mosley: It's a rewrite of the current requirement to lay firearms regulations before both houses.

As I mentioned in my opening comments at the start of this morning's session, the key change from the departmental perspective, apart from the scope of the regulations contemplated, is the de-linking of the timetable from the Senate schedules. With regard to Bill C-17 regulations, that became a very difficult problem to work around.

The point you're addressing is this. Although this approach was adopted through Bill C-17 - it wasn't there before, I might add - it is unique with regard to federal legislation in general. There are only a handful of federal statutes which require a similar form of parliamentary scrutiny of delegated legislation. The Official Languages Act is one.

Mr. Wappel: I understand that, sir.

Subclause 111.(3) says that a proposed regulation is laid before the House. It comes before this Justice Committee. The Justice Committee, within the 30 sitting days, recommends that the regulation and not proceed. It lays that report before Parliament. Subclause 111.(3) permits the regulation to be made in any event. Isn't that right?

Mr. Mosley: Yes.

Mr. Wappel: Then what good is it?

Mr. Mosley: The experience with this type of provision, not only in Canada but elsewhere around the world where there are similar models, is that there are no instances or recorded examples - and my authority for this is a text on delegated legislation by John Mark Keyes. There are apparently no recorded instances where the executive has chosen to proceed in the face of a negative resolution by Parliament. However, Mr. Wappel, that is ultimately a political matter for which the executive of the day is accountable to Parliament.

Mr. Wappel: Yes.

Proposed subsection 117.15 of Part III, I take it, is the regulation section under which firearms would be prohibited. Is that correct? Is that the section under which the Governor In Council would prohibit firearms? Just yes or no.

Mr. Mosley: Yes.

Mr. Wappel: Thank you.

Subclause 112.(6) of the Firearms Act specifically exempts from parliamentary examination regulations made under proposed subsection 117.15, correct?

Mr. Mosley: Yes.

Mr. Wappel: So, any Governor In Council order prohibiting a weapon would not be subject to parliamentary scrutiny, correct?

.1150

Mr. Mosley: Yes.

Mr. Wappel: Why?

You know there are lot of people, who advance a conspiracy theory that the government is conspiring over a course of years to prohibit by way of Governor-in-Council orders all weapons. It's starting slowly and eventually it will gain force and pretty soon only the police and the armed forces will be able to have weapons, and the Governor in Council will have made all these orders.

From an optics point of view, this particular section, and the exemption from the parliamentary review, fits right into the hands of those who would argue that.

The Chair: Mr. Wappel's time has finished, but I would like you to answer the question.

Mr. Mosley: If I could refer to some history, the modern authority to prohibit firearms derives from the 1978 legislation, and when Bill C-80, the predecessor to Bill C-17 was before the House, it did contain in effect a negative resolution process whereby Orders in Council prohibiting weapons would be made, but then could be subject to being unmade following a negative resolution passed by parliament. Then there was a procedure similar to the one that is now in the bill for other kinds of regulations.

In the debates that took place between Bill C-80 and Bill C-17, the position was advanced by the government of the day, and remains I believe the position of the current government, it requires the authority to be able to move quickly to deal with specific weapons, as they appear in the country or appear on the market, with a fear that they may be imported into the country and find their way into the hands of persons in this country.

One example of that, although it did not prove to be necessary, was the flurry of interest last year over the so-called ``black rhino bullets'', which ultimately turned out to be unsubstantiated. In those circumstances, the government could have moved quickly prior to the possible importation of that type of ammunition to declare them to be prohibited under this authority.

Weapon firearms that are prohibited under this authority tend to be those which the vast majority of Canadians, with the exception of some collectors, regard to be unacceptably dangerous in terms of public safety and should be banned. I think if you look at the prohibition orders to date that is borne out by those that have been made.

In terms of whether there could be a procedure whereby those could be subject to parliamentary scrutiny, I simply remind you that would take some time, meanwhile the authorities would be unable to prevent the possible importation or distribution of such firearms that might be manufactured here around the country.

Mr. Wappel: Mr. Chairman, could I be put down for round three, please?

The Chair: Yes.

[Translation]

Ms Venne, you have five minutes.

Ms Venne: I'll pass for now, Mr. Chairman

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Ramsay.

Mr. Ramsay: I want to follow up on this constitutional issue.

Before Christmas 1994 when the justice minister tabled the proposals, he made the statement at that time that the consultation phase is over. That's what he said. He didn't say except for aboriginal peoples or James Bay or the Yukon.

Now, I am of the opinion, unless I can be convinced otherwise, that there has been a violation of the constitutional rights of the James Bay and the Yukon Indian people. Now, if consultation has begun between either of those two groups and the justice department, will you provide evidence of that to this committee?

Mr. Mosley: Part of the consultation process is notice. That has begun, as I indicated earlier, with the sending out of the government's action plan and then subsequently the bill. The fact that the specific meetings have not taken place, with the exception I mentioned earlier with the Teslin Tlingit, does not detract from the point that the process has begun and will be completed.

.1155

The reference that Mr. Ramsay, the hon. member, made to the minister's statement was I think in the context of a debate in the House or a Question Period response in the House about the global process that he had undertaken last spring, and not specifically in the context of aboriginal or treaty rights.

Mr. Ramsay: I would ask, Mr. Chairman, that the deputy minister file with this committee any documentation that supports his contention, and that of the justice minister, that consultation in accordance with the prescribed manner contained within both of those agreements was initiated.

The Chair: There's been a request that you do that. I would hope that if you have letters, records of phone calls, meetings, or whatever, you could table those with the committee.

Mr. Ramsay: I would like to go then to the integrity of this mail-in system.

When the witnesses from Revenue Canada Customs, Excise and Taxation were before the committee, we explored how they were going to handle this new system of registration, because they're going to have to register the firearms coming into Canada by the hunters. That was the example used.

They said to expedite the process they would send the documentation to them, so when they arrived at the border it would be all filled out - not unlike the mail-in system. But when I asked the witness if they would simply make out the registration card from the documentation, they said that wasn't what they would do. What they would do is inspect the firearm to ensure what was on the document were the actual serial numbers and other identifying features for that firearm. So when the registration certificate was issued that information on the registration certificate had been verified.

Mr. Bennett said they're not prepared to run any significant risk of that happening, and ``that happening'' was that the fundamental principle here is to maintain the integrity of the registration system, and the only way he thought that it could be maintained is through a hands-on inspection of the firearm.

Now, I say three cheers to the revenue people, because to me that makes sense. It does not make sense to me for a moment to suggest that filing information from mail-in cards into a registration system is going to establish the integrity of the system.

So when the two forensic scientists were here, I asked them if they would feel confident issuing a registration certificate for a firearm they had not inspected, and the information they're putting on that registration card had not been valided, and both said they would not feel confident.

I would ask the appropriate witness today if you would feel confident in issuing a registration certificate for a firearm where the information on that registration certificate had not been validated, bearing in mind that this act provides for a criminal offence for not having your firearm registered?

The Chair: Mr. Connolly.

Mr. Connolly: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

When firearms are being brought by hunters into Canada, if they're not pre-registered when the person arrives at the border, Revenue Canada intends to go through the process of taking the information and registering those firearms and validating or confirming the registration by an examination of the firearm and the documentation that's presented.

.1200

For those non-residents who are coming to Canada in the future and are on the registration system and they've been issued registration documentation, the acquisition certificate and the permit for their firearms, the second time they come, we may or may not examine every time because they will have in their possession at that time the appropriate documentation and cards, and those firearms should be in the system and they are subject to check, so obviously if they have the wrong ones when we check them, then they're in trouble.

Mail-ins: We're actually not going to be receiving mail-ins at Revenue Canada, but there could be those non-residents who do get mail-in certificates issued to them by provincial firearms officers, that when they arrive at the border the first time we intend to validate by reviewing and looking at the firearm.

The Chair: Is there anybody else who could answer that question?

Mr. Ramsay: I acknowledge that system. I'm asking for a response to my question from the people who will be running the system for the rest of the Canadian gun owners, not just for the people coming across the border. That was my question, and I thank him for his answer, but I'm looking for an answer from this other quarter.

The Chair: Yes. Who can answer that part?

Mr. Vanwyk: I should point out that the RCMP will be operating the system eventually. My job is to implement the particular system. So in respect to the proposals and in respect to the provisions that I've outlined in my earlier statements I would be confident in issuing such a document.

It's based on a number of parameters and it goes back to when do you actually eyeball or verify it and there are a number of opportunities: if the firearm is involved in law enforcement occurrence; when there's a transaction between one person and another, from perhaps a mail order purchase; when the firearm is referred to experts by the validation tables at whatever level; perhaps at the renewal of the licence; or even at the request of the owner. So there are always opportunities to validate.

I want to go back to my earlier statement that in many cases the card that will be issued is essentially the file locator number. We're looking at a system where, as opposed to now, you have to change your address with a whole host of individuals, different issuing agencies. We can do this at once. The information on a file would essentially be updated continuously.

The Chair: Mr. Lee for five minutes and hopefully after Mr. Lee we will conduct some business for a few minutes.

Mr. Lee: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I wanted to touch upon the regulation-making authority now.

The Chair: This won't be taken from your time. I want to make it clear that we're going to interrupt the meeting for a few minutes and then we'll go back to our list of questioners. We still have three, four or five questioners after, but Mr. Lee first.

Mr. Lee: Thank you. Mr. Mosley, your department and the minister have recommended to Parliament in this legislation that we exempt from the parliamentary review of regulations, both the most trivial of regulations referred to in section 112(2) and perhaps what is arguably the most important of those regulations, those which would prohibit specific weapons. Other types of regulations in the middle, neither being the most trivial or the most important, would have the parliamentary review.

Do you have a rationale for that because it seems to me that surely the most important of the regulations that do the prohibiting should be run by Parliament because it affects firearms and property actually in the hands of citizens? Do you have a rationale for that?

Mr. Mosley: Mr. Chairman, I would question the assumption implicit in the question. The assumption is that the regulations under 110 are less important than the ban on specific kinds of firearms. I question that because I would argue that those regulations and the existing regulations, which currently apply, are far more important to the vast majority of Canadians who own and use firearms.

.1205

The Canadians who own and use firearms for hunting and sporting applications aren't in possession of the type of military - style or inherently dangerous firearms which have been the subject of prohibition orders. There is only a very small number of Canadians, in the collecting class for the most part and some competitive applications, who are directly affected by those Orders in Council.

If you looked at the numbers, which I think we had in the action plan on November 30, the absolute number of firearms which are affected by those orders and coincidentally the absolute number of Canadians who are directly affected is relatively modest.

The regulations under clause 110 will govern the possession, storage and use of a large number of Canadians who have rifles for sporting applications. I think that really is much more important than banning a UZI, prohibiting one of these ``TECH-9s#'' in the hands of somebody who's collected it because they like the appearance of it. To govern the use of somebody who has a deer rifle and a shotgun and how they're going to employ that is, with respect, much more important.

Mr. Lee: For citizens perhaps the issue isn't so much what has been prohibited up to now but what will be prohibited in the future. So the firearms which you've just mentioned are already prohibited and there's a huge class of prohibited weapons already. The issue is what else will the Governor in Council decide to prohibit and will that initiative be subject to any parliamentary scrutiny?

Your recommendation to parliament in this statute is that parliament will not, notwithstanding that other elements of regulatory activity in the same field are scrutinized.

I accept that you've attempted to explain the importance.

Mr. Mosley: But could I add a further point

Mr. Lee: Sure you can.

Mr. Mosley: Anything that the executive does is subject to parliamentary scrutiny. The executive is accountable to parliament. So if there's an Order in Council that is made which is, in the view of any member of parliament, inappropriate, that matter can be raised in the House or the Senate.

Mr. Lee: We all know how subject to scrutiny Governor in Council activity is. You don't have to tell us. I think we, around the table, have a sense of that. We may have differing views on it.

One last question, the two CPFOs here, Mr. Kramers and Mr. Mathias, could you tell us to whom you would ordinarily report in relation to the exercise of your general authority as public servants in the provinces, and would you indicate whether or not you report at all or are accountable at all to any federal authority, given that we, in parliament, are delegating some significant authority to you? Mr. Kramers first.

Mr. Kramers: Thank you. I'm responsible to my Minister of Justice who is the Attorney General for the Province of Nova Scotia. I work with that department and I'm directly responsible to him through the legislation that is listed in the Criminal Code of Canada.

Mr. Lee: Is there any person who is accountable to the Parliament of Canada out there that you report to? Is there any linkage at all with the Parliament of Canada in your day-to-day work?

Mr. Kramers: Not with any individual person, no.

Mr. Lee: Mr. Mathias.

Mr. Mathias: Similarly in British Columbia, I report to the Attorney General through an assistant deputy minister and the deputy minister. I'm a provincial public servant. Not being a lawyer, I don't know the right words to put to this, but the Attorney General is delegated the authority for the administration. Subsequently, I'm the official assigned to do that. There is no federal official or member of parliament in that chain.

.1210

Mr. Lee: Mr. Mosley do you have any constitutional concern about this parliament delegating to individuals who do not report to a minister that reports to this House, and who would be accountable to this House?

Mr. Mosley: No. As I mentioned earlier, virtually the entire scheme of the administration of the Criminal Code is delegated to the provincial Attorneys General.

The Chair: At this point, we're going to interrupt this meeting to have a short business meeting. Meanwhile this will give all of you individuals a chance to stretch your legs.

If you stay in the room, I'd ask you to be quiet but if you wish to go outside, not far away, that's fine too. We'll call you back as soon as the meeting is finished. So I'd ask you to be as quiet as possible because I want to move into this business right away.

Members of the committee, you're aware that Mr. Ramsay tabled a motion a few days ago and it's in order that it be taken up. The motion by Mr. Ramsay is that the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs suspend hearings on Bill C-68 until the constitutional claims of the Yukon Indians and the James Bay Cree, regarding consultation, be dealt with.

Mr. Ramsay: Point of order.

The Chair: Yes.

Mr. Ramsay: I was of the understanding this was going to be dealt with at 1 p.m. My file is not here. The 48 hours is not up until at least 3:30 p.m. I wonder if consideration could be given to my needs with regards to the information that I have on my file that's not arrived yet?

The Chair: Well I said several times yesterday that we would interrupt this meeting. This meeting was scheduled to go from 9 a.m. to 1 p.m. So we'd have enough time, I said that we'd interrupt this meeting at 12:00. That was on the record.

Mr. Ramsay: My information was 1 p.m. I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman, I might have misunderstood that.

The Chair: Not only did I say it once, I said it several times. In any case, Mr. Ramsay...

[Translation]

Mrs. Venne: On a Point of Order, Mr. Chairman. In view of the fact that we have had this motion before us for a number of days, how is it that I have not been able to get it in French? It only has three lines. It seems to me that it would have been very simple to have it translated into French.

The Chair: It was the responsibility of our Committee and not of the member to have the motion translated. I do not know why it hasn't been.

Mrs. Venne: I understand, but I am trying to point out that this might show a lack of good will somewhere.

The Chair: As you know, members of a committee can use either one of the official languages.

Mrs. Venne: I am not talking about the members themselves, but about the Committee which did not have the motion translated. I imagine that it is the clerk of the Committee who did not have it translated.

The Chair: Very well.

[English]

In any case, Mr. Ramsay, after having been -

[Translation]

Mrs. Venne: Mr. Chairman, would I normally not be supposed to have this motion in French before we start discussing it?

The Chair: I understand your intervention, but generally speaking, members can speak before the Committee in either one of the official languages, as I have already stated. It is up to the interpreters to translate what is said in Committee. On the other hand, I do not know whether it is a requirement that all the motions moved by each member be translated. This should be done out of courtesy.

Mrs. Venne: I do not believe that it is simply a matter of courtesy. I agree that it is not up to the member himself to have a motion translated. I simply believe that all motions should be in both official languages. Since this motion was presented a number of days ago, I believe that it should have been translated before we begin consideration.

The Chair: I am quite happy to look at this matter. As you know, in the past, the proceedings of each Committee were available next day. We now have to wait several days. For instance, when Mr. Ramsay moved his motion the other day, it was recorded with the rest of our proceedings. In principle, you should have had the translation with the Committee proceedings. Unfortunately, this was not done. If you wish, I can read it again and you can have the translation done by the interpreters.

Mrs. Venne: This is not how we should normally proceed.

The Chair: I am quite willing to have a follow-up on your request. You might be right. I don't know.

The motion might not be in order as it now stands.

.1215

[English]

I was about to say that I'll return to that if you wish, but having received a motion, I referred it to the clerk. The clerk consulted with authorities, and it appears that the motion is out of order.

I refer to Beauchesne's, 5th edition, citation 168, sub (5). It says that the speaker - and this applies to committees as well, as the chair - will not give a decision upon a constitutional question nor decide a question of law though the same may be raised on a point of order or privilege.

It would seem that if we were to accept a motion such as this it would mean that we were ruling on a constitutional matter. Only the courts can rule on constitutional matters. It says, though, that this can be raised, and of course I've raised it and Mr. Ramsay has raised it. We can continue to raise this in Parliament and put political pressure on with respect to it, but as a motion, it's out of order. Consequently, I can't receive it according to the advice that I have.

Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Chairman, this is not a motion to discuss a constitutional matter or discuss a legal matter. This is a motion to, as the motion reads, suspend hearings on the bill until the constitutional claims of the Yukon Indians and the James Bay Cree regarding consultation be dealt with.

I'm not asking the committee to deal with any constitutional issue or any legal issue. I'm asking that the committee consider suspending proceedings until such time as that has been dealt with by the appropriate authorities, not by this committee.

I'm saying this, Mr. Chairman; if we do not stand for the rights of the Indian people when we have evidence that those rights are being violated, then -

The Chair: Order, you were on a point of order up until that point. Now you're beginning to argue in favour of the motion.

I sought advice on this, and I've listened to what you have just said on your point of order. It appears that there is a difference of opinion as to whether there is a violation of the Cree and the Yukon Indians' constitutional rights. Personally, I feel that there has been - personally. But as chair, I can't rule on it, according to this.

So when you say that your motion doesn't deal with the constitutionality question, in fact it does, because by making the motion and agreeing to it or receiving it, we're accepting that there has been a violation of their constitutional rights.

Mr. Ramsay: No, I'm not, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: I've examined this, and that's my ruling, despite my personal feeling and my intention to pursue the matter myself. As the chair of the committee, I have to apply the rules and the precedents of Parliament, and I'm ruling it out of order.

Mr. Ramsay: Well, I ask for a vote on your ruling.

The Chair: I think you can do that - one second.

The usual question in this case is, according to the clerk, is the decision of the chair sustained? The chair has made a ruling and Mr. Ramsay is within his rights to appeal that to the floor of the committee on a matter.

Decision of the chair is sustained

Mr. Ramsay: Then, Mr. Chairman, I move the motion that this committee adjourn.

The Chair: Mr. Ramsay has made a motion that the committee adjourn. There is no debate on such a resolution.

Motion negatived

Let me say that I have a lot of sympathy with the points that were behind Mr. Ramsay's motion, and I intend to pursue them myself. But the motion has been ruled out of order, and we will now proceed to other business.

[Translation]

Mrs. Venne: I rise on a point of order before we go on to something else.

I would like to know if it would be possible to have a legal opinion to the effect that from now on we will only consider motions that are in both official languages.

.1220

I would like also to add that it is a pity that it is a francophone clerk who makes me move such a motion. Thank you.

[English]

The Chair: Alright, there is a motion by Madame Venne that we seek advice as to whether motions that are tabled and must require 48 hours, whether they should be translated. Personally, I have great sympathy for that. Is there agreement to that request by Madame Venne?

Mr. Wappel: Mr. Chairman, why do we need to research anything? Why don't we simply decide as a committee that any motion that is tabled must be translated - period?

The Chair: Good, you can if you want. Is that agreed to?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: It's agreed.

Now, we have to decide upon a more specific schedule of meetings with respect to the clause-by-clause and the appearance of the minister. Are there any suggestions to be put to the committee?

Mr. MacLellan (Cape Breton - The Sydneys): Mr. Chair, I was speaking to the Minister of Justice, and he's quite prepared - in fact, eager - to come before the committee before we start our clause-by-clause. Next Friday morning was suggested as a time when he could appear before the committee.

The Chair: Are you proposing that the minister appear -

Mr. MacLellan: I'm proposing that he appear before the committee next Friday, May 19, in the morning.

The Chair: At 9 a.m. like this morning?

Mr. MacLellan: That would certainly be fine with the minister.

The Chair: We will have completed our meetings with the MPs on Thursday. It has been proposed that the minister appear with his officials on Friday at 9 a.m., for the morning.

Mr. MacLellan: In speaking to Mr. Wappel and Mr. Ramsay about times with officials, I want to make an addition that after we meet with the minister perhaps there would be some further time allotted with officials, if it's the wish of the committee.

The Chair: Fine.

Mr. Wappel: Mr. Chairman, as a point of clarification, it was my understanding the last time we discussed scheduling that on the Monday after the break the minister would appear in the morning with his officials. Is this suggestion of the parliamentary secretary now in place of that - ?

Mr. MacLellan: Yes.

Mr. Wappel: - thereby moving it up one day?

Mr. MacLellan: Yes.

Mr. Wappel: Is that because he is unavailable on the Monday following the break?

Mr. MacLellan: I'm not sure about his scheduling, but this was the suggested time.

Mr. Wappel: Would we then be able to use that Monday slot, which we originally thought was going to be for the minister and his officials, as an opportunity to continue with officials, even in the absence of the minister, if we felt that we wished to continue with officials?

The Chair: I understood there was a desire to proceed with clause-by-clause on Monday.

Mr. Wappel: That's what I'm getting at. Is that what -

The Chair: Well, I understand -

Mr. Wappel: The understanding is from where?

Mr. MacLellan: This is what we would do.

The Chair: May you should present the whole proposal.

Mr. MacLellan: I didn't want to put the two together, but what I would propose is that we have the minister come before the committee on Friday morning, May 19, for an allotted period of time and that the officials be available for questioning after the time with the minister. We would then begin the break, and when we return on Monday, May 29, we would begin with clause-by-clause that morning. The officials would be present to continue any questions, but we would begin the clause-by-clause.

The Chair: And proceed until we finish.

Mr. MacLellan: Yes.

Mrs. Barnes: I want to clarify, have we time until 1 p.m. today to finish the questions with officials?

The Chair: I hope so.

Mrs. Barnes: Okay, fine.

The Chair: That doesn't take away from further meetings.

Mrs. Barnes: No, I just wanted to make sure.

The Chair: Ms Meredith.

Ms Meredith: At the time you introduced the idea idea of having this meeting today, there wasn't a timeframe on it. It was our opportunity to find out why they wrote this bill in the manner they did.

I don't know about anybody else, but I have a whole lot of questions I would like to pose to them. I'm a little concerned that there's a 1 p.m. deadline and that we're not going to be able to progress through this discussion, as I understood why we were doing it on a Friday was so that we would have unlimited time to deal with it. I find we're being rushed.

I don't know that a Friday with the minister.... Are we going to have all day with the officials if we are unhappy with some of the...? Are we going to have more time before we get into clause by clause to deal with why they wrote it the way they did?

.1225

The Chair: Excuse me. Would there please be some quiet in the room? We're still carrying on this meeting.

To begin with, you may have proposed it that way, but for good or bad, you're not the only member of the committee, and with consultation it was considered that four hours would do it. People had planes to catch and so on. The notice went out some time ago that it would be from 9 a.m. to 1 p.m.

By the way, we've had quite a.... I've had more people intervening today than at any meeting we've had so far, and we still have more time. We have another half hour.

As I said, people have made commitments. The meeting is to end at 1 p.m., but we'll have another chance next Friday, and we'll decide.... Mr. MacLellan has proposed that the minister come at 9 a.m., and then when he's finished the officials could stay on longer for a continued hearing. Most members, the staff, and everybody else like to know an hour when we would aim to finish so they can make commitments with their families. If it were a national emergency, that would be another matter, but we try to find a reasonable time so people can know when the.... It may go over fifteen minutes or twenty minutes or something.

In any case, there's a proposal before us. Now I recognize Mr. Ramsay.

Mr. Ramsay: We had discussed, and it was brought up by Mr. Wappel at our last meeting, that we ensure that our legal counsel had sufficient time to draft the amendments. Mr. Wappel may want to move a motion, or I will, to the effect that we ensure that our legal counsel has sufficient time to draft the amendments prior to clause by clause.

The Chair: I would hope you'd have time to do it, too. I would think you should have, and by the way, we've already encouraged you to approach our two legal counsels and Mr. Bartlett and Mr. Rosen for help. But if I understand correctly, there's a motion by Mr. MacLellan that we have the minister here next Friday followed by officials and we start the clause by clause Monday morning.

I'll go to Mr. Ramsay and then Mr. Wappel.

Mr. Ramsay: My understanding of our last meeting was that there was going to be.... Now, there was not a motion; that's why I'm asking for it to be contained in the present motion that we have assurance that the legal counsel have adequate time to draft our amendments.

The Chair: Mr. Ramsay, I have sympathy with what you're saying, but I recall that we suggested that if the legal counsel all of a sudden.... I think she said that the last time, she was on the verge of jumping off the Interprovincial bridge or something like that. We said that if she became overloaded, she should report to us immediately and we'd have to deal with it. I think that was our ruling.

Mr. Ramsay: Perhaps we can hear from legal counsel what she has and how she feels about the load she's carrying now. We should know whether or not she can determine an individual -

The Chair: Have you received any proposed amendments so far, after the meeting the other day?

Ms Diane McMurray (Legislative Counsel): No sir, I haven't.

The Chair: None so far. Here the legal counsel are waiting and nobody is presenting anything to them.

Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Chairman, that's not the point.

The Chair: Well, it is the point.

Mr. Ramsay: No, we're developing that. The point is whether or not she's going to have time when they do start to come.

The Chair: Now wait a minute. We've said she has the right to come back if she feels overworked. So far she doesn't have any. We know - I've identified myself - many issues where you could start drafting amendments.

In any case, we're going to have to decide upon this. We're not going to keep these people here all day.

Ms Torsney, you have something to add on this.

Ms Torsney: I just thought there should be some reasonable goals here. What are we going to do, turn around the night before and suddenly dump everyone's amendments on the legislative counsel and then they have to turn around and say they can't do it? Clearly there are things that have been identified. The members opposite have said they would work under the provision that they would supply some information. Get them going if you have a list of amendments. You haven't done anything with them yet, and it's not fair to turn around -

Mr. Ramsay: We have problems to work on, but certainly we -

Ms Torsney: You can get her the concept for the idea and you can get her some goals as to where the amendments will be so that she can identify all the hidden clauses and all the buried clauses she referred to.

Mr. Ramsay: We have a week's testimony left to go through. How can we start -

Ms Torsney: And you haven't a clue on an amendment yet, Mr. Ramsay?

The Chair: Excuse me. You're supposed to address the chair. You're not supposed to be exchanging views across the floor, and don't talk at the same time.

Mr. Ramsay.

.1230

Mr. Ramsay: Well, Mr. Chairman, I want sufficient time and our committee wants sufficient time, and we want the guarantee from the committee that we will have sufficient time to allow us to prepare and submit our amendments so that they are properly drafted.

[Translation]

Ms Venne: Mr. Chairman, we understand very well what Mr. Ramsay is trying to achieve: he is simply hoping to delay as much as possible the clause-by-clause study so that we will be forced to spend the summer doing it. We know very well what he is trying to do.

I think that we should instead deal immediately with Mr. MacLellan's request and decide whether or not we accept his proposal. That's what we should decide immediately.

[English]

Mr. Ramsay: Excuse me, Mr. Chairman. I have to object to that, because I have stated clearly that I wanted to work within the deadline. I didn't agree with the deadline, but when it was set, I wanted to work within the deadline, including hearing all the witnesses. We've been going day and night hearing the witnesses. So I object to what Madame Venne has said, because I'm prepared to work within the guidelines.

The Chair: You have the right to disagree with each other; this is a parliamentary system.

Mr. Ramsay: I want it on the record.

The Chair: Well, you have it on the record. The point is that I hope you will have time and I encourage you to get in your amendments. The members on our side have already sent a raft of amendments, not to our legislative counsel but to the Department of Justice, because we hope they will agree with some of the things we are proposing and they will draft them as government amendments, changes to the bill. So we've already initiated many areas. You may be interested in some of them. I think it's time you -

Mr. Ramsay: Send us a list.

The Chair: I'm willing to discuss it with you in due course, or maybe the parliamentary secretary should.

Anyway, we have a motion before us that we request the minister to appear next Friday at 9 a.m., and when he's finished he'll be followed.... He should be with his officials, but when he leaves we may have further questions for the officials. Then we start the clause by clause on the Monday, on returning from the break.

All those in favour of the motion.

Ms Torsney: I have just one point of order.

The Chair: You want continued debate?

Ms Torsney: No. You just said that we meet at 9 a.m. Would you adjourn at 1 p.m.?

The Chair: No, we didn't put in any adjournment time yet for next Friday.

Ms Torsney: It's sort of important when you have to vote on it.

The Chair: All those in favour of the motion.

Motion agreed to

[Translation]

Ms Venne: I have a point of order. On the issue that we voted on earlier regarding motions that will have to be tabled in both official languages from now on, I would like us to remember that there is an exception for motions tabled during the clause-by-clause study. Thus, members will be able to table an amendment.

The Chair: Yes, of course. This decision applies only when a 24-hour delay is required.

Ms Venne: Okay. Thank you.

[English]

The Chair: Also, I want the committee to take a decision on this. This room has been reserved for the clause by clause. This is the room that's used for televising the debates and the discussion. The clerk has asked me whether we want to continue the clause by clause discussion in this room with television. As chair I think it would complete the educational process, the information purposes. There are so many Canadians interested in the bill, and it's good that Canadians know the motions for amendment we put, what the arguments are for and against the amendments, and so on.

It's up to you. Somebody would have to move that we do our clause by clause in this room, subject to being televised.

Mr. MacLellan: So moved.

Motion agreed to

The Chair: Well, that's all the business on that.

We will now return to the other meeting and the list I have. The first person is Mme Venne pour cinq minutes.

Mr. Lee: Mr. Chairman, I'm very sorry. I just have a point of order related to these matters. Had I been asked to record my vote on the last motion, I would have voted against, but I wasn't asked.

The Chair: I'm sorry.

Mr. Lee: In any event, the motion carried easily. I just wanted to point out that I'm a little uncomfortable sliding in the clause by clause at 9 a.m. on the Monday after the one-week break from Parliament. We hadn't mentioned start time for the clause by clause.

The Chair: You're right; we said Monday morning.

Mr. Lee: Yes, we did. I wouldn't at all want to get started on it at 9 a.m.

The Chair: You're a chair of a subcommittee and you know once you've decided upon something we can't open it up again.

.1235

Mr. Lee: I'm not opening up the issue of whether or not we do clause-by-clause on Monday. I'm raising the issue -

The Chair: The time.

Mr. Lee: ...of what time we start on Monday when we come back and I'm of the view that it should not be 9 a.m. or 10 a.m., it should be more like 11 a.m. Ten-thirty might fit.

The Chair: I don't mind as the Chair, but I think if you're going to get this bill done, you're going to have to stick to it and it may mean then going Monday night.

Mr. Lee: Mr. Chairman, we've already moved it up a whole day beyond the original timetable.

The Chair: I understand that there are a whole lot of bills coming back from committees of this House going to the floor of the House, a lot of bills, and in the rules of the House the usual time for adjournment is June 23, that if something isn't done to get these bills back into the House - some people may disagree with that - but we will have to extend that and go into the summer. Our own house leader has told us that this is a possibility.

All I'm trying to do is co-operate with the members of the committee. You're right, no hour has been fixed, but I guess we could consult on that further. We said Monday morning. We can fix a time after consulting with members and you've expressed your view already.

Mr. Lee: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[Translation]

Mrs. Venne: My question deals with clause 27, on page 17. I believe there is a discrepancy between the French version and the English version. The English version speaks of a ``wish'' whereas the French version speaks of a ``need''. I would like you to tell me if you consider wishes and needs to be the same thing? I for one do not believe they are the same thing.

The English reads: ``that the purpose for which the individual wishes to acquire the restricted firearm'', whereas the French reads: «s'il est convaincu que celui-ci en a besoin...». Which of the two versions is the right one? Is it a wish or a need?

Mr. Roy: I just discovered the two versions, the English and the French as you were reading them. So, I will be reacting off the cuff, since I haven't had the chance to take a close look at this issue.

Ms Venne: I'm catching you off guard, but perhaps you could provide us with a written opinion by next Monday or Tuesday? At that time, we could have another look at these two versions to see which one, in you view, is preferable.

Mr. Roy: If the Chairman agrees, I would appreciate that.

Ms Venne: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[English]

Mr. Bodnar: Section 111 deals with applications to prohibit people from possessing firearms and it indicates some of the procedure where a peace officer or a firearms officer can apply to a provincial court judge to prohibit a person from possessing any of the items specified in the act. Under subsection (b) it indicates that: ``if there are reasonable grounds, such an application can be made that another person who is prohibited by an order made under this act'' and it proceeds. In other words it lays out the procedure that you can apply for a prohibition order against the person who possesses a gun, has done nothing wrong whatsoever, and just by being associated or cohabiting with someone else that's -

The Chair: A law partner.

Mr. Bodnar: ...someone else in the home. So my question is, and another example really is as well, if a child is prohibited from possessing a firearm and the parent then has to decide if he should let his child back home when he has a prohibition order against him or should the parent make sure he doesn't return home because he doesn't want to lose his privileges of possessing firearms, I have problems with this section. I have real problems.

.1240

I have problems, as well, with the example given by the Chair of a law partner because then I have to choose who I work with in the future, and not only determine that the person is trustworthy in the handling of trust moneys or competent in the performance of work, but I have to determine whether the person has prohibition orders or a potential for getting a prohibition order against him or her.

It's also my understanding that the minister foresaw in this particular legislation that perhaps if there was cohabiting by individuals, one who had a prohibition order against him or her and the other one, that it was simply to hopefully keep the firearm out of reach.

This section goes much further in prohibiting an innocent party completely from possessing a firearm. Is that the intention of this section or is the intention much narrower than what I have indicated to you?

Ms Weiser: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The purpose of this provision was to deal with situations where, for example, somebody has been subject to a prohibition order for armed robbery and, after serving a prison sentence, returns home and a parent, spouse or sibling has a firearm. The concern is that the prohibition order would in effect be negated because that prohibited person would have access to a firearm. The threshold test, therefore, is that a person who is prohibited would have access or might have access to a firearm. It can't be just anybody. The provision does allow for the judge to make conditions on the cohabitant and that is the intention. So a judge could simply require a parent, a sibling, whoever the cohabitant is, to keep the firearm stored elsewhere.

Mr. Bodnar: Where is it indicated that the conditions can be imposed by the judge?

Ms Weiser: If I could get back to you in one moment, I will locate the provision that allows a provincial court judge to add conditions.

Mr. Bodnar: Please, because you can see my concern. That child returning to a stable environment may not be able to return to that stable environment if the parent wants to maintain the privileges that the parent has under this act. The same problem arises with employers and employees. In other words, this may be more detrimental to a safe family environment than it is beneficial in the long run.

The Chair: I'm going to the Reform Party. Is it Ms Meredith this time?

Ms Meredith: Yes, Mr. Chairman. I would like to get into part III of this act. I understand that part III will be replacing the present part III. Am I correct in that understanding?

Mr. Mosley, I also remember you stating that you at one time had been crown counsel. Did you at any time plea bargain away a firearms charge? Just a simple yes or no.

The Chair: You're not on trial. I think Ms Meredith is trying to examine.... A lot of people have complained about plea bargaining on these offences.

Ms Meredith: Let me rework that. It might make it easier for the witness. If you ever did consider plea bargaining a firearm charge away, what would be the reason for that?

Mr. Mosley: Well, rather than refer to my own personal experience, I could tell you what our research found over the course of the past year when we did examine that issue directly with provincial authorities, with crowns, judges and the police. Invariably the response that was received was that there was a problem of proof. In other words, in order to apply section 85, as it is currently worded for example, you have to establish that it was a real gun and if the gun was not recovered or was not discharged at the site of the crime, then the Crown might not be in a position to prove that offence. Either that was the situation or where there was a withdrawal or stay of that charge, that it resulted from an agreement that the accused would plead guilty to the major substantive offence such as the armed robbery.

.1245

Ms Meredith: Because I'm running out of time -

Mr. Mosley: But I should tell you that the provincial crowns have taken the view that there is no routine bargaining away of firearms offences. In fact, they take issue with the assumption, that seems to be fairly widespread, that this is a normal course of action.

Ms Meredith: Well, let me tell you, Mr. Mosley, that I have talked to provincial crown and they have assured me the reason that they do plea bargain it away or that it never enter into the court as a charge is because of a lack of evidence. They cannot prove it was the firearm unless they immediately catch the individual or the gun has been fired and they have a ballistics report which can tie the gun to possession to possession.

It gives me great concern that you haven't eliminated that potential. You have two charges here, one under a section 85.1, a charge for the use of a firearm, a second charge for the use of a replica or an imitation firearm, under section 85.2. Why didn't you just put those two together so that it is an offence for the use of a firearm or a replica so that you don't have to prove, number one it's either a firearm or number two that it's a replica?

As I see it, legal council has reviewed the bill as currently written and determined that it is not going to solve the problem. Why did you make it two separate charges instead of putting it together under one charge?

Mr. Mosley: With respect, the change to section 85 does precisely that which the honourable member has suggested is necessary. Now, section 85 will apply not only to the use of a real firearm but to every person who uses an imitation firearm while committing that indictable offence.

Ms Meredith: If I may interject here, sir, you have to prove that it was either a firearm or you're going to have to charge them with the use of a replica, then you are going to have to prove that it was a replica and not a firearm. You are not allowing a court to assume what's obvious, that it's either one or the other and the charges are placed before them on that understanding. You've made it two separate charges.

Mr. Mosley: I'm afraid I don't quite understand the point. If there's no evidence to establish that it is a firearm, then the section 85 offence can be charged with respect to the imitation. If it is unclear -

Ms Meredith: And if the imitation is a firearm?

Mr. Mosley: Excuse me, if it's unclear, then the 85 offence can be charged in the alternative with a firearm or an imitation thereof.

Ms Meredith: Are you suggesting that an individual can be charged with a commission of a crime with the use of a replica, and if they are found not guilty because they convince the courts that it wasn't a replica, it was the real thing, that you can recharge them with the use of the real thing?

Mr. Mosley: I think the practice will become that the police and the crowns have to specify the alternative if they're in doubt as to whether it was a real gun or not. If they don't have the actual instrument; if they have it that it's beyond ##per venture##, then it's a question of forensics as to whether it is a real gun or is not.

There may be some debate because if you've got a starting pistol that's been bored out, is it a real firearm; is it an imitation firearm? There may be some debate as to whether it is or is not but I don't see it as being a charging problem.

Ms Meredith: So you're giving the assurance to Canadians that there will no longer be any plea bargaining away of firearm charges because this will hold up in a court of law, that we will no longer see firearm charges continually plea bargained away because they cannot be proven in the courts.

Mr. Mosley: I think we're very confident, Mr. Chairman, that this change will make a huge difference in the processing of such offences.

The Chair: Mrs. Barnes for five minutes.

Mrs. Barnes: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. One of the things that a number of my colleagues and individuals across this country have been trying to do is encourage this committee to make an amendment which would remove some of the sanctioning sections from the Part III of the Criminal Code, perhaps over to the regulatory act that is being constructed under this bill if it becomes legislation.

I feel that, as I'm sure you do, that the federal government has very strong constitutional grounds in the area of gun-control legislation.

It is absolutely intra vires, as far as our Supreme Court and all case law to date governing that area, that we are very firmly there, even though people continually try to raise this issue saying that we're getting into the area of property civil rights, which is in the provincial jurisdiction.

.1250

I think that there are many amongst us who are trying to reach out ensure that this legislation is acceptable to all of the Canadian population and therefore easier to enforce, etc. Having reviewed the case law that we have before us, one of my concerns is - and I would like to see if you have an opinion on it to date - if we move any of these, ``decriminalize'' some of the sanctions - and the suggestion has been with first-time offences in particular - it would be a much more attractive proposal if I was totally sure that we wouldn't then be moving this over into a provincial jurisdiction.

So, on the one hand I have sympathy. On the other hand, if that means that I'm going to call into question the whole bill and its constitutionality, then it's not something I want to entertain. I tried to seek my own research on this and other opinions, and I'm just wondering whether you think that that's at all something to be worried about? I know you're not the Supreme Court of Canada, but where do you come from in your review?

Mr. Mosley: Perhaps I could say at the outset that I think that there may be a misconception as to what the effect of transferring the offence provision for non-compliance from Part III of the Criminal Code to the firearms act. That would not detract from its character as a criminal offence.

I think you're quite right that the stigma which attaches to the offence would be diminished, that it would not bear with it the same stigma as a conviction under the Criminal Code, but it is still a criminal offence relating to legislation, which is within the competence of parliament in the exercise of the criminal-law power. There are a number of examples in federal statutes which are not part of the Criminal Code but have been upheld as examples of the exercise of that criminal-law power.

With respect to the movement of the offence from one to the other that is a matter of policy on which this committee will no doubt want to express its views and will be dealt with in the House. I just wanted to make clear that the real effect is not to change the nature of the conviction.

There is another consideration, which if and when the contraventions act comes into effect, that statute might be brought to bear on the question of compliance and non compliance. It does contain a specific provision that a conviction for an offence dealt with under that act is not a criminal conviction.

Now, I'm not sure what the effect of a fly in the contraventions act would be to these provisions but our view - and we've looked at this quite closely - is that moving the compliance offence from the code to firearms act would not weaken its constitutional validity as an exercise of the crimina-law power.

The Chair: Madame Venne

[Translation]

Mrs. Venne: On page 15, line 36, of the bill, the text is such that one could be led to believe that one could use from now on a license to possess firearms or any other document to buy amunitions; this could mean for example a driver's license.

I had understood that this clause was an interim measure, something to be used until a license to possess firearms can be secured. From what I understood, the prescribed document was to used only for the interim period. Is this the intention or are we really going to be able to use both?

.1255

[English]

Mr. Mosley: Another type of document could be used in the interim, but the intent is that ultimately the firearms licence would be the prescribed document to purchase ammunition.

[Translation]

Ms Venne: In that case, I believe that we will have to modify this clause to make it really understandable and applicable. Thank you.

[English]

The Chair: I now go to Mr. Wappel. He will be the last questioner today because the meeting was to go until 1 p.m. We may go over a few minutes.

I'd like to remind the members of the committee, though, that we're going to have officials back with the minister next Friday, and when we're doing clause-by-clause it's expected that the officials will be here as well to answer questions as we put amendments and deal with the amendments. So this is not the end of everything.

Mr. Wappel, you have five minutes, and then we will adjourn.

Mr. Wappel: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I'm mindful of the time, and I thought I might first of all ask you, sir, if you would be so kind as to ask Officer Smith to bring back for the next meeting the representative firearms he has in the .25 calibre, .32 calibre and barrel length. There are a number of questions I would like to ask in connection with that, and I think a picture is worth a thousand words there.

Thank you, sir.

The Chair: I agree with you. Since I was sitting in the chair the entire morning, I didn't have a chance to look at these as well and I'd like to examine them. So if they could be brought back next Friday, that would be very helpful.

Mr. Wappel: Now, Mr. Mosley, back very quickly on the regulation-making, in your answers to me about why section 117.15 of part III would be exempted from the Houses' reviewing prohibition orders, orders making certain firearms prohibited, you indicated the question of urgency as the primary reason why it was exempted. Yet I note that in subsection 112(3) of the firearms act you provide for that very circumstance, namely the question of urgency with respect to regulations that would otherwise be reviewed by the Houses.

I simply ask you from a legal perspective.... There's no problem whatsoever in taking the equivalent of subsection 112(3) and then grafting it into section 117.15 so that in cases of urgency, the Governor in Council could in fact prohibit certain firearms and that indeed subsequently the House could review that decision. If the House agreed - fine, no problem, weapon prohibited. If the House disagreed, then the weapon would not longer be prohibited.

From a legal point of view, there's no problem in doing that. That's a political question, isn't it?

Mr. Mosley: That is correct.

Mr. Wappel: We simply don't have time for the answer, but I would like you listen to this question and ask your officials to come back....

Perhaps I'll ask this question first: on the methodology whereby the Governor in Council will determine that a firearm is going to be prohibited, will that methodology change under Bill C-68, or will it be the same as it is currently?

Mr. Mosley: On first impression, I don't see any change in the methodology from the bill, but you might want to reflect on that.

Mr. Wappel: If you would reflect on that, and then if that's the case, I would like....

I notice that in 1994 certain weapons were prohibited by Order in Council. As an example, I refer specifically to the Benelli M3 Super 90 Pump/Auto Shotgun.

.1300

For the next meeting, I wonder if you could come back and tell us the exact methodology, as an example, that particular firearm was worked through the system. In other words, who brought it up as an issue? Where does it go? How does it get described? How does it ultimately get to the Governor in Council with a recommendation? Who recommends it? What's the procedure at the Governor in Council to make that decision because I have absolutely no idea? It certainly would help me in determining whether or not we should be amending or proposing amendments to section 117.15 of part III.

Mr. Mosley: Certainly.

Mr. Wappel: Thank you.

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Barnes): That's your questions?

Mr. Wappel: That's it. Thank you.

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Barnes): I want to thank all the people who helped give us the information today. We certainly appreciate it.

That being all the questions, I adjourn the meeting.