EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Monday, May 29, 1995

.1405

[English]

The Chair: Order.

Before we begin the clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-68, as the chair I want to share with you some of the steps we've taken to try to conduct the meeting as efficiently and as fairly as possible.

As you know, we've come a long way in this committee. We've heard from 70 witness groups, and the members of the committee have taken their work very seriously. This can be observed by the large number of amendments that they've prepared, on all sides. So it's my responsibility, with the clerk and other help, to ensure that we proceed with these amendments in as efficient and organized a fashion as possible, and also to be as fair as possible to make sure that all members who wish to move amendments can do so and have their rights fully respected.

Before we proceed, I'd like to point out that the clerk has prepared copies of amendments that have come forward prior to this meeting. In one package we have amendments that were submitted by the government, and also ones submitted by members on the government side, which are not necessarily government amendments. We also have a package of amendments submitted by the Bloc Québécois and a package of amendments submitted by the Reform Party.

Generally speaking, the clerk, having received these amendments in advance, tries to prepare an agenda showing the order in which we'll take these amendments; but he got them only at the last minute. So in some cases we'll have to make a decision, because there are certain rules and traditions in respect of amendments, especially ones on the same clause, as to which ones will be heard first and which ones will be heard second and how we shall vote on them. There's no problem when there's just one amendment to a clause.

As you know, there's no obligation to present your amendments in advance. You can present an amendment at any stage, but when you do so it has to be in writing; we have a rule on that. Ordinary motions don't have to be in writing, but amendments to bills do.

I'd also like to bring to your attention that although you may have prepared your amendments in advance and circulated them, you still have to move them; it's not presumed that they're moved. So when I call a clause, let's say clause 3 or clause 4, you have to say, ``Mr. Chairman, I'd like to move our amendment to clause 3, which has been distributed''. The fact that it has been distributed of course helps the members in that they can read it without delaying the meeting.

When I call a clause and you don't have an amendment to it but you might oppose it, unlike report stage in the House, where you may move a motion to have a clause deleted, you can't do that in committee. But you can vote against the clause. Of course, when I call a clause and there's no disagreement with it, it will carry without any discussion or debate. But if you have a question in respect of the clause, we have the parliamentary secretary and officials here to answer questions. But you also may wish to make it clear that you're going to vote against the clause and you may want to explain that and put on the record your reasons for opposing the clause, even though you're not amending it.

.1410

I ask members to make their arguments as concisely and as strongly as they can. However, they should try to avoid, if they can, ad personam or provocative arguments that will simply make it more difficult for the committee. Be as strong as you wish in your arguments for your amendments or against points on the bill, but it will be helpful if we can all conduct this at a high level.

When I go through the clauses, because some of the amendments have been received at the last minute and maybe some have not even yet been received, make sure you get my attention if you wish to move an amendment or you wish the floor to put your amendment on a certain clause, perhaps to express your opposition to the clause or to ask a question.

We have with us a number of parliamentary officials, as well as officials from the Department of Justice. With me at the table I have Louis-Philippe Côté and Diane McMurray, who are from the Legislative Counsel's office and who have helped, to the extent they could, with the drafting of amendments. There is also Robert Normand, the legislative clerk, and Richard Dupuis, the regular clerk of the committee. From the Research Branch of the Library of Parliament, we have Philip Rosen, our senior analyst, and Bill Bartlett, our research officer for gun control measures.

All that having been said - and I might have forgotten something - I will now proceed to -

Mr. Ramsay (Crowfoot): On a point of order, Mr. Chairman. We have a motion that has to be dealt with that was tabled on the last day we sat. Were you intending to deal with that at this time?

The Chair: Yes. I had referred that to the clerk to get some help on ruling with respect to it. The clerk tells me that he was so busy preparing for this meeting that he has not completed that work yet.

I wanted to be absolutely sure, but it's my view that the motion, which more or less says that we should obey the rules, etc., is out of order, because it's taken for granted that the chair should apply the rules. If the chair fails for one moment not to apply the rules, then the usual procedure is for any member immediately to make a point of order and point out that the chair or members are not following the rules of the House with respect to committees and also the traditions in Bourinot and other precedents set forth for Parliament and the committees. It's my view that it's not in order to receive a motion that would say that the committee should follow the rules. The committee of course should follow the rules, and members have to be vigilant and immediately to bring to the attention of the committee, through the chair, that there has been a break in the rules or in any matter relating to a parliamentary committee on a point of order and the chair will deal with it, and hopefully will deal with it fairly.

If you wish, I could wait until the clerk finishes his work and have the advice to the chair and we could deal with it tonight, but for the moment I could not give a ruling on it. I would postpone my ruling on your motion until this evening, if you wish, but if you want my ruling, that would be it.

I can assure you that I intend to be as fair as possible, to apply the rules of the House and to recognize any point of order. If you want me to deal with it in the regular way, then I will have to postpone it until tonight.

Mr. Ramsay: Why don't you do that then, Mr. Chairman.

I have another concern. As you are aware, we have submitted many amendments for draft purposes that are not back yet. Our information from the drafting team is that considerably more time is needed in order to do that. I am concerned about the procedure that would allow us to go forward today, while at the same time respecting the need for time to complete the drafting of amendments that have been presented to the drafting team.

.1415

I would like to move a motion to adjourn the committee proceedings until Wednesday, June 7, 1995, to provide legislative counsel adequate time to draft amendments, as submitted by members of the committee.

The Chair: Just a second now. We passed a motion a long time ago, when we first organized this committee, that all motions must have a 48-hour notice. That doesn't apply to amendments to a bill, because when we call the clause-by-clause consideration it's presumed that notice is given, and therefore amendments can be given to the bill at any time.

With respect to this motion, I'm advised by the clerk - and this corresponds with my own feeling - that the committee decided by a motion, which I believe was unanimous, that we should proceed to clause-by-clause consideration on this day. I've received complaints from different sides of the committee that the legislative counsel were not able to draft all their amendments in time for today. Having looked into it, I fully agree that the legislative counsel have too much work to handle within the time they were given.

On the other hand, it's not written in the rules anywhere that members must have, or should have, or have the right to have their amendments prepared by the legislative counsel. Members can draft amendments themselves; they can be assisted by their research bureaus; they can be assisted by other people in their party. The legislative counsel is there to help, but there is no obligation that amendments be done by the legislative counsel.

I would think that in the circumstances your motion is not receivable, but I'm willing to listen to discussion on this point from members before making a final ruling.

Mr. Ramsay: If I may just address the purpose of the motion, how, then, are we to produce our amendments for consideration by the committee, if you're now saying that we have no right to submit those amendments to the drafters? That certainly is news to me, or that attitude is news to me from this committee. We discussed that very thing, and I have the minutes of our meeting where we did that. We discussed the concern we had about the drafters not having sufficient time to receive our amendments and draft them and get them back to us prior to the clause-by-clause reading. I would certainly have a great concern about our not being able to bring forward our amendments to this bill as a result of what you have just said, Mr. Chairman.

We have 268 amendments presented to the drafters for drafting. We have received approximately 25 back. As we go through clause by clause, what are we going to do when we come to the clauses for which we have amendments before the drafters but we don't have them here today because of a lack of time and because of the deadline set by this committee? What are we then to do? What recognition will the chair make of that situation we find ourselves in?

The Chair: I think there has been some misunderstanding. There's nothing to prevent you from tabling amendments. The question is whether those amendments had to be drafted by the legislative counsel or not.

The rule says that members have the right to put amendments. It doesn't say that members have the right to put amendments that are approved of or prepared by the legislative counsel. You have the full right to put your amendments forward when I call the clauses.

If you don't have them ready, then you might say at that particular clause that you have an important amendment to put but it's not ready yet, and the committee can consider whether or not they would stand that article, which is possible. We've done that, you'll recall, on Bill C-41. We stood to the end the very controversial article that had to do with sexual orientation and other matters, because people were drafting amendments right to the very end. As a matter of fact we accepted one, I think from the Bloc Québécois on including language rights, at the end. So we stood the article.

.1420

I suggest that, if you have amendments that you wish to put but they are not yet ready for one reason or another, when we come to the clause you could make that point and the committee will decide whether we should stand the article. I'm sure that if these are serious amendments and ones in which they're interested, the committee will respect that. They've done that in the past, and I think they would do it again. The committee has made a decision to go ahead on this date, and I have to respect the decision of the committee.

You're well aware of the fact that amendments can also be put at the report stage on the bill in the House of Commons. Amendments that are not put in committee can still be put there. As a matter of fact, sometimes members think it's more advantageous to put them in the House rather than in the committee. Sometimes new points develop during the committee that lead them to develop amendments such that the only place where they can put them is in the House at the report stage.

Some others have indicated that they want to speak on this point.

Mr. Langlois.

[Translation]

Mr. Langlois (Bellechasse): Mr. Chairman, amendments are being submitted in a disorderly fashion. Mr. Ramsay says that it is only part of the amendments. How can we study this bill section by section if we do not have all the amendments and we are not given an opportunity to consider the purposes of the amendments tabled by the government, by the Official Opposition or by the Reform Party?

There has to be some form of purpose on the part of the government, the Official Opposition or the Reform Party in moving amendments. If we study the bill section by section without knowing about the other amendments, without having that indication of a line of thought, it is as if we were putting a locomotive on its tracks without knowing which way it is heading.

If you are not willing to simply adjourn this debate, I would suggest that we should stand the study section by section and the other amendments until next Wednesday, June 7.

[English]

The Chair: I must repeat again that while it's preferable that all members put in their amendments in advance so you can see the directions they are going, and what the amendments are, so you can all prepare for each other's amendments, the rules don't require that. As a matter of fact, at any point during the proceedings any member of the committee can present an amendment when the clause is called. The rules don't require what you're suggesting, but we've always said that's the better way of doing it. It helps the committee to make a judgment with respect to other amendments. Sometimes they might see an amendment of another member that's better than their own, and they may withdraw their own, etc. There are a lot of good reasons for doing that.

On the other hand, that's not in the rules. As far as I know, there has never been a strong movement to do it, because it would foreclose people from putting amendments in at the last minute. If there was any inconsistency in amendments passed by the committee in committee, those are often dealt with at the report stage. It's not frequent, but it happens on some occasions when you have to do corrections at the report stage in the House.

There were some other people who wished to speak on this.

Ms Meredith (Surrey - White Rock - South Langley): I think I'm missing something, because I remember a meeting with the whole committee where, when we asked if there would be enough time, the legal counsel indicated that they would not have enough time, that they were tearing their hair out: it was the government side that suggested it or brought it up, and would there not be an allowance to stretch it over if in fact that was the case? I suggest that's where we're at.

You say that there isn't anything in writing that says that a parliamentary group such as ours have to use legal counsel. It's my understanding that it's our right and privilege to use them, to make sure that the amendments are in proper form. To be denied that access.... What you're telling us is we're going to take up and waste the time of the House of Commons entirely, because this committee is rushing into something for which we're not even ready.

.1425

I look at these three piles of paper. The clerk hasn't even had a chance to go through the amendments to see if there's duplication and to see in what order they should fall in order to be dealt with in an efficient manner.

I suggest that we're jumping the gun. As a committee, we are not ready to get into clause-by-clause consideration. I don't see why we cannot put it off for two or three days to allow everybody to get organized. I don't think we're doing a good enough job on this bill if we don't even know which piece of paper we should be dealing with first.

I want to go on the record as opposing the feeling of being shoved into a situation we're not prepared for.

The Chair: The committee will decide whether it wants to do that or not. I'm just pointing out that I recall that when this was first raised, we encouraged members to prepare their amendments at that point.

Ms Meredith: We did.

The Chair: I understand that the legislative counsel got piles and piles at the very last minute, although it was suggested to members that it would be better if they could.... Points that would require amendment were identified weeks ago, but everybody waited until the last minute. In any case, it's their right to wait to the last minute.

I put this in the hands of the committee.

Mr. MacLellan (Cape Breton - The Sydneys): The legislative counsel are certainly very competent and very quick, but they can go at only a certain speed for the numbers there are. They are there to help, but not to do all the work for members of Parliament.

Frankly, I can't remember a bill where there has been such a delay in time from the completion of hearing of witnesses to the beginning of clause-by-clause consideration. It has been my experience that sometimes there would be one or two days; sometimes the bill would start immediately after the finishing of hearing witnesses. We are over a week later.

My understanding is that the legislative counsel didn't have any amendments before them to draft before we adjourned on May 19. If they did, then they had very few. The fact is there are areas where there may be some second thoughts and some consideration may need to be given. We could perhaps stand those clauses, within reason, but I certainly don't see where we should delay.

In fact, there are two different proposals from the Reform Party. Mr. Ramsay says until June 7 and Ms Meredith says for two or three days. That's totally unacceptable, and we should begin.

The Chair: I want to consult again with the clerk. We already passed a motion unanimously in this committee to proceed today. We did that almost two weeks ago, on May 9. We decided to proceed on this day, which was following a week's adjournment. It was felt that during the week's adjournment we could prepare for the clause-by-clause consideration. It's not as if we started immediately after the last witness.

A lot of amendments have been proposed. I already see quite a few amendments before me.

I suppose that the committee could overturn its decision to proceed today. Mr. Ramsay was making a motion to that effect. That motion would usually be receivable, but we have the rule we adopted that there must be a 48-hour notice for motions. We're getting it only now; we didn't get it two or three days ago. I'm trying to respect the rules this committee has already adopted, and one is the 48-hour notice on motions such as this.

There's no doubt he could put the motion, but it seems that time is of the essence. I want to consult with our clerk to see if there's any way of making an exception to that rule.

.1430

The clerk tells me that the rule on 48 hours of notice is a rule passed by this committee and that any member could have put in a motion last week with the clerk, in advance of the meeting today, and no notice would have to have been taken up immediately today, with the 48 hours given. But the 48 hours of notice weren't given. So while this motion is in order, I can't deal with it for 48 hours, which means at this time on Wednesday.

In the meantime, I go back to the other points I made, that if there are clauses where members have amendments, they could ask that the clauses be stood. They will still have plenty of time to put all those amendments in at report stage in the House.

So, Mr. Ramsay, while your motion is not out of order, it's simply that I can't put it for discussion because you haven't given the 48 hours of notice to put it. You're putting it only now. You could have put it last week, and then I would have had to put it for voting and discussion now. I will take it that it's being tabled from the time you introduced it at the beginning of the meeting, and it can be taken up as soon as 48 hours has elapsed.

In the meantime, I'll ask the committee to be flexible on standing clauses.

Mr. Breitkreuz (Yorkton - Melville): I would like to raise a couple of practical matters. I think a lot of confusion could result if we went ahead now looking at some of the amendments and then have to come back at a later time, after possibly having approved a clause, when a further amendment would affect that.

The Chair: Just to correct that, you're misunderstanding the rules. If you had an amendment to a clause, you wouldn't accept it. If the clause is stood, there would be no amendments. There would be no discussion on that clause. The whole clause would be stood.

Mr. Breitkreuz: But, Mr. Chairman, you don't get the point of what I'm trying to say. We may approve an amendment to another clause, which may then come back and affect the amendment we would like to make to another clause, because they all tie together. If you jump back and forth, a tremendous amount of confusion could result if we don't have everything on the table.

The Chair: Mr. Breitkreuz, I'll give you the floor again, but I'd like to deal with each point you make. That is always a possibility in large bills when we deal with amendments, even if we had them all two weeks ago and they were put before you. Some amendments come later in the bill and can consequentially affect parts at the beginning. Then it's up to the staff to make it consistent. So that's always a possibility, because, as I said, you might move an amendment near the end of the bill - and you have no obligation to give us notice - and it might carry. It might affect other parts of the bill, but then we have to make it consistent and consequential.

Mr. Breitkreuz: The other practical consideration we have to make is if we continue now with the clause-by-clause consideration, the legal counsel are here with us. How can they then prepare all of the amendments that are submitted to them that they have indicated will take a week and a half to prepare? Will that week and a half be pushed off? Will we have to reconsider some of these amendments then, after a week?

Would it not be more practical to wait now, rather than to go ahead for two or three days and then have a recess for a week or so while they prepare the rest of the amendments? It seems to me that, practically, it would be better to wait until June 7, 1995, to have all our amendments in order, and then proceed.

The Chair: That's a good point. Maybe I'll have to discuss that with the legislative counsel.

Mr. Breitkreuz: Maybe we should ask them.

The Chair: Usually they sit in on the meetings to get a better understanding of further amendments to be done, but if we're now at the clause-by-clause consideration, I don't know.

If there are still amendments to be drafted, maybe you'd be better off back in your offices working on amendments, rather than sitting here.

Would you like to explain that, please?

Mr. Louis-Philippe Côté (Legal Counsel): We're also here to answer any type of legal question regarding the bill, and perhaps to explain the drafting that we've done on the motions we have drafted, as well as, perhaps, on government motions.

The Chair: You've heard the answer. They feel that they should sit here to answer legal questions and to explain drafting that they've already done, in case there's ambiguity.

.1435

Mr. Breitkreuz: That's precisely my point, Mr. Chairman. While they're here with us - and they should be - they would not be able to spend the time preparing the amendments. When will they do that? I ask this because we're scheduled to meet for most of the day and possibly again tomorrow. We are not allowing them time to prepare these amendments properly, yet we expect them to be done by the time we deal with them.

The Chair: At least by report stage.

Mr. Breitkreuz: Yes, but do you see the practical considerations that I've brought up?

The Chair: I see difficulties, but I'm administering the rules of the committee. The motion that Mr. Ramsay has presented today could have been presented 48 hours before the meeting, and then I would have had to put it to the committee today. I'm not criticizing Mr. Ramsay - he's a new member - but those are the rules. You get familiar with the rules as you become more experienced. Those are the rules and I have to apply them.

Mr. Wappel (Scarborough West): Mr. Chairman, I don't wish to prolong the discussion, but I'm trying to get a handle on what the Reform Party is saying here, and also as it relates to my amendments.

We have here two packages, handed to us today by the Reform Party, which appear to be, at least on a cursory examination, in proper form - both official languages - which takes us up to page 48 of the bill. They seem to be ready to go, at least to page 48. The Bloc has given us a set of amendments up to page 118. They seem to be ready to go. The government has given us amendments for the entire bill. The government seems to be ready to go.

I have 25 of my 35 amendments duly in the appropriate form. I hope they have been distributed. If they have not, that's my next point. I'm ready to go.

I don't see what the problem is. We're going to be here for a while and we're going to be dealing with these things nicely and slowly, because they haven't been put together. We're not going to be shuffling cards here; we're going to be doing it nicely and slowly, making sure that we don't make any mistakes.

I don't see the need at this stage, from my perspective, unless someone can explain why, to adjourn for a week and a half when we've already got 50 pages of amendments, by the very fact that they've been handed to us. I gather that the Bloc have all of their already-thought-out amendments.

As we go through, there may be consequential amendments that people suggest that are going to be blurted out orally, which will then be discussed with legislative counsel, with research staff, with the government, and we may be making amendments on the fly. It's not as if that hasn't happened before.

At this stage, I really can't see that there's any prejudice to beginning. That's not to say that I foresee any early end to the procedure, but I see no reason why we can't begin today.

[Translation]

The Chair: Mr. de Savoye.

Mr. de Savoye (Portneuf): Mr. Chairman, I have had the government's amendments before me for a few minutes now. The package is still warm and is made up of precisely 99 pages. Obviously, I have not had the opportunity of acquainting myself with it. Of course, I can read as we go, but that also means I would be proceeding blindly, and would not have the clear vision of the overall package that some distance can bring.

Of course, according to the rules of procedure, I don't have that right. If we apply the rules strictly, I don't have the right to take the time I need to familiarize myself with the amendments. And yet, I and other members around this table feel the need to read these documents in order to ensure our full and effective participation in the work of this committee.

I understand Mr. Chairman that one may submit any amendment at any time. If all of these amendments were given to us together, there was probably a reason for that. But if the rule is applied strictly, the objective pursued by those who submitted the amendments will not be served. The fact that all of them were given to us at the same time will be of no use to us; they might as well have been distributed sheet by sheet.

Furthermore, Mr. Chairman, this committee should not decide whether the adjournment motion is in order or not, but rather whether we, as members of Parliament, will be able to intervene in a more useful fashion after having studied all of these documents.

.1440

I feel that democracy - because democracy is what this is all about - would be better served by members who have had the time to apprise themselves of the documents before them, who have had the time to prepare, rather than by members who are prisoners of what seems to me to be an abusive application of the procedure. Thank you.

[English]

The Chair: Again, I have to clarify the rules. The rules we're applying have been applied to committees for a long time. Generally speaking, members can anticipate the areas of amendment during the hearings of the committee. They've listened to the witnesses. They've made notes of clauses that certain witnesses find very objectionable. They've made note of changes they might want to make.

It's easy for a member who has followed the meetings closely to anticipate not the details but the general areas of the different amendments that will be made.

As I say, it's unlike the House of Commons on report stage, where you must give your notice of amendment in writing and then it's put in the Order Paper, so you know all the amendments that are being tabled at report stage. That does not apply in committee.

In committee the rules have been that way for a long time. The committees have acted democratically. Members can table amendments at any time, including major amendments. As a matter of fact, there is no obligation on any of you to put forward these amendments in advance. We usually request it as a courtesy. It's helpful to have the amendments in advance, but that's not in accordance with the rules.

In accordance with the rules, when you call a clause, any member can say, ``I move this amendment to clause...'', and hand the amendment to the clerk.

As a matter of fact, Mr. de Savoye, if I remember correctly, when we were dealing with Bill C-41 the amendment to the hate crimes section that was finally accepted was an amendment by your own party that we accepted at the last minute and incorporated into the bill. If we had received all these amendments in advance, that amendment might not have been made.

In any case, I'm applying rules that have applied in committee for a long time. When they introduce amendments, members are asked to explain them. You can listen to the explanation. You may not agree with them. You would debate them. Then they will be voted upon. You would still have a chance at the report stage in the House to introduce amendments to knock out amendments that you don't like here.

You might think there are a lot of amendments here today, but as chair of committees I've been in committees where there have been even more amendments than there are today.

I agree with you that there's a problem. As a committee, we should do something about that as soon as possible. With the resources available to the legislative counsel, it's absolutely absurd that we have 3.5 persons in the legislative counsel office for 20 committees of the House of Commons, especially when they all have legislation and are preparing amendments and dealing with bills.

We've made a decision to proceed today. We did it weeks ago, on May 9. We knew that we would have to prepare amendments for today.

I can only put Mr. Ramsay's motion to the committee for debate and decision in the 48 hours following its tabling.

Mr. Lee (Scarborough - Rouge River): With respect, the procedure we seem to be adopting here causes the risk that we will get into a debate between the chair and individual members as they raise points.

Mr. de Savoye has mentioned that we ought not to let ourselves become trapped by strict application of our procedural rules. It caused me to think. I want to point out - and I do it somewhat tongue-in-cheek, but it is perhaps real - that just as Mr. Ramsay's motion would not be debatable today because we haven't had 48 hours' notice, so might also all of the other substance motions that we have before this committee today. To the best of my knowledge, most of those have not been provided with 48 hours' notice either.

The Chair: Excuse me. On that -

.1445

Mr. Lee: Mr. Chairman, I think, rather than get into a debate with you - because I don't like that type of procedure - I'll finish my remarks and then we can listen to other members.

I just want it to be known that if we come to a place in the bill where there was clearly an amendment coming down the pipeline and it's not yet ready for prime time, it's not in proper form and counsel indicates this, then we wouldn't have much of a choice but either to adjourn or stand down the matter. So I certainly would be willing to accommodate those things when they occur. Thank you.

The Chair: Again, I just want to explain the rules with respect to the 48 hours. It doesn't apply to amendments on the bill. Once the committee has decided to have a meeting to deal with the bill clause by clause, it means that we can receive the amendments on clause-by-clause consideration at that time. Notice has been given that clause-by-clause consideration will begin, and we can expect any amendments at that time, but other types of motions are subject to the rule.

[Translation]

Mr. Langlois: Mr. Chairman, I think that it is important to distinguish between form and substance. A motion to adjourn has been made and that is a procedural motion. We can very well begin clause by clause study if that was our decision on May 9th, and adjourn right after we begin with clause 2. It is up to us to decide on the advisability of passing a bill or amendments to a bill, just as it is up to the courts to decide on the legality or constitutionality of the laws that have been passed.

Nor, Mr. Chairman, when we are before a court of law, it happens quite frequently that we chose a date for a sitting and that after one, two or three hours, the judge may very well decide with or without the consent of the lawyers involved, to adjourn the proceedings to allow for more detailed study. This happens frequently in trials before jurys, it happens at every stage, even in criminal matters; proceedings may be adjourned at eight day intervals in preliminary pro forma investigations.

So, we may be bound by a procedural rule which states that we must officially acknowledge that these amendments have been tabled today, but nothing prevents us three minutes later from deciding to adjourn? It is a procedural matter, not a matter of substance, but one which concerns the form a proceeding takes, Mr. Chairman.

And if our committee does not have jurisdiction over its own procedural matters, I think we have a serious problem. That means that should an amendment of substance of seven or eight pages be tabled before us without prior notice, we would have to study it, because it would not be subject to the 48 hour notice rule, whereas a simple adjournment motion would be. I respectfully submit that that notice will not be required as soon as we have undertaken our clause by clause study and that Mr. Ramsay's motion will be in order at that time, at the very least.

[English]

The Chair: It was my understanding that Mr. Ramsay's motion was not simply a motion to adjourn. A motion to adjourn the committee I believe can be made at any time, so you're absolutely correct. But I understood that Mr. Ramsay's motion would be that we adjourn to a fixed date to deal with the bill clause by clause, etc.

Mr. Ramsay it could be helpful if you could.... Did you give the motion to the clerk?

Mr. Ramsay: Yes, I have it here.

The Chair: Maybe I should read it to the committee, because -

Mr. Ramsay: Bearing in mind what has been said here, I'm certainly prepared to amend my motion.

The Chair: As I said, anybody can make a motion to adjourn the committee, a simple motion such as that. I believe it's non-debatable and it's voted on immediately. If it was to carry, then the committee would have to decide in some way or other when we would call the meeting again, and I would be subject to the rules of the House in that respect.

I'll read your motion:

Motion to adjourn the proceedings of the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs until Wednesday June 7, 1995, to provide legislative counsel adequate time to draft and return the amendments submitted to date by members of the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.

[Translation]

The Chair: Mr. Langlois, as you explained, this is not a simple adjournment motion; there is more to it than that.

[English]

I'm receiving this as a motion in any case, but, as I said, the chair, unless there is any other point of order or -

.1450

[Translation]

The Chair: Sorry?

Ms Venne (Saint-Hubert): I had given my name.

The Chair: Please forgive me, Madam.

Ms Venne: To conclude, since we had decided to start clause by clause study today, we seem to be ready and we have a quorum, we should begin. My only question is related to the fact tha we have only received part I of the government amendments. Why does the government not provide us with all their amendments? Do they want to keep any of them back or to hide them from us? I do not imagine so because they would have to make them public anyway. Why do we not have all government amendments at once? This is the question I am asking.

The Chair: It is a good question. It is up to Mr. MacLellan to answer.

Ms Venne: What I especially want to point out is that we do not have the amendments on inspection even though the Minister had promised them. Why do we not have them? That is an important point.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. MacLellan, would you like to answer that question?

Mr. MacLellan: Yes. I believe we have presented our amendments up to clause 95 to the committee today. We have prepared the amendments on the inspections area, but we want to make a couple of changes. Those changes will be made very quickly and we hope to have those to the committee this evening or first thing tomorrow morning.

Mr. Ramsay: On the same point of order, I respect the deadlines the committee has set, and I have respected those deadlines from the beginning, but always with the condition that May 19 was the deadline set for hearing witnesses. I agreed with that inasmuch as we could hear all pertinent witnesses. Barring a few, we were able to meet that objective.

The deadline for commencing clause-by-clause amendment today was, again, agreed to by myself and my colleagues on the basis that our amendments would be prepared and ready to go. We began to submit our amendments on Friday, May 19, and we finished submitting them on Wednesday, May 24.

I am suggesting, then, that we should go forward with the amendments until we reach a point where - and we will notify the chair - we wish to make an amendment to a clause that is not prepared and returned to us. At that time I will be prepared, on a point of order, to move that this committee adjourn without a date, allowing the members of the legal committee time to draft their amendments and get them back to us so that we can proceed in an orderly fashion.

The Chair: As I said, it has always been within the power of the committee to stand amendments or to adjourn the committee whenever they think they might wish to do so for any reason. Since there are a lot of amendments ready for the beginning of the bill anyway, it seems as if we could.... If I understand correctly, you're ready to proceed with those, so we'll proceed.

Again, when I call the clause, I ask you to notify me immediately if you wish to either object to the clause or file an amendment.

It's customary that clause 1, which is simply the title, stands. So clause 1 will stand.

Next I go to clause 2, which is the clause dealing with interpretation and definitions.

On clause 2 - Definitions

The Chair: The clerk tells me that we have amendments. I'll tell you what we'll do. We'll deal in each case with the opposition amendments first. Since they aren't all in order, would the clerk...? There's no opposition amendment to clause 2.

.1455

Ms Meredith: Could I please get a definition or an explanation from the Department of Justice as to what they mean by ``prescribed''? When they use the word ``prescribed'', what exactly do they mean?

The Chair: You're quite in order to ask that question, but it'll be helpful for the -

Ms Meredith: It's at line 18 on page 3. It says ```prescribed' means'' and then ``prescribed by the federal Minister''. What do you mean by ``prescribed''? Exactly what are you referring to?

Mr. MacLellan: That's the ability to make regulations.

Ms Meredith: So whenever it says ``prescribed'', that means that there are regulations. Are there regulations in place now with Justice that fall into the prescribed manner?

Mr. MacLellan: Well, there are regulations. The regulations are in the process of being drafted now. We don't have them available yet, but they will certainly come before the committee when they are ready, as soon as possible after they are drafted.

The Chair: Before the proclamation of the bill?

Mr. MacLellan: Before the proclamation, hopefully.

The Chair: Are there any other questions before we deal with the amendments?

We have an amendment G-1. Is somebody ready to move G-1?

Mr. Gallaway (Sarnia - Lambton): I'll move it.

The Chair: This is in the package.

Mr. Gallaway: I have moved it, but I've asked Mr. MacLellan or the departmental officials to explain it. It is amendment G-1.

Mr. MacLellan: Mr. Chairman, this is a -

Mr. Wappel: On a point of order, because of the volume of paper in front of us, it might be helpful, rather than identifying a motion as G-1, unless it's particularly lengthy, if it could be read into the record, because I'm not sure that we might necessarily be talking about the same thing. If, for example, G-1 proposes to amend clause 2 on page 1 by striking out line 14 and substituting something else, then at least we know what we're talking about.

Mr. Gallaway: Mr. Chairman, I'll move amendment G-1, which deals with clause 2, page 1, line 14.

The Chair: All right. So we will have a procedure that we will follow, in the packages you have one package with amendments entitled G-1 or G-2, and you also have LP-1 and LP-2. Those mean Liberal Party amendments which aren't government amendments but which have been submitted by Liberal members. You have another list of amendments which are BQ and another list of amendments with R on them, and I understand that you have LP, LW and LG from the individual members.

What Mr. Wappel suggests is good. You can use your discretion. If it's a long one and everybody has looked at it, that's fine.

Mr. Gallaway, would you refer to the number G-1 but also read it into the record, if you wish.

Mr. Gallaway: All right. I move that clause 2 of Bill C-68 be amended by striking out line 14 on page 1 and substituting the following:

ization described in section 17.1 or 18;

[Translation]

Mr. de Savoye: Mr. Chairman, I can see that it is written for this amendment on the paper with the English version:

[English]

This amendment is consequential on proposed new clause 17.1.

[Translation]

Am I wrong to say that we should first look at clause 17.1 to understand what we are dealing with and then amend clause 2 consequentially? Are we not proceeding the wrong way around?

[English]

The Chair: The usual procedure would be that you would stand that one, since it is consequential on clause 17.1. When you deal with clause 17.1, you would later come back to it.

Sometimes members might have looked at clause 17.1 and it may be such a simple amendment that they know what it is and they're ready to.... But if you wish to have this stood because we haven't yet dealt with clause 17.1, you may -

.1500

Mr. de Savoye: You do understand, Mr. Chair, that we didn't have time to acknowledge all this -

The Chair: You're requesting to have it stood?

Mr. de Savoye: Thank you.

The Chair: It's been moved and it's on the table, but that it's been asked that we stand it till we deal with new clause 17.1. Is that agreed to?

Amendment allowed to stand

The Chair: We also have an amendment that we've been given notice of, G-2. Who will move it?

Ms Phinney (Hamilton Mountain): I move that clause 2 of Bill C-68 be amended

(a) by striking out lines 15 to 17 on page 1 and substituting the following

``business''

``enterprise"

``business'' means a person who carries on a business that includes

(a) the manufacture, assembly, posses-

- and so on, and

b) by striking out lines 2 to 11 on page 2 and substituting the following:

ammunition,

(b) the possession, purchase or sale of ammunition, or

(c) the purchase of cross-bows

and includes a museum:

(c) by adding, immediately after line 15 on page 3, the following:

``museum''.

``musée"

``museum'' means a person who operates a museum

(a) in which firearms, prohibited weapons, restricted weapons, prohibited devices or prohibited ammunition are possessed, bought, displayed, repaired, restored, maintained, stored or altered, or

(b) in which ammunition is possessed or bought;

(a) and (c) of this motion and part of (b) create a separate definition of ``museum'' and are thus consequential on such motions as the motion to amend clause 62.

The Chair: Do you have any further information to add to that? I have some members who want to discuss it.

Ms Phinney: Mr. Chairman, I was going to ask that that motion be stood, because I'm going to ask that all motions on cross-bows be stood at least until tomorrow.

That mentions the word ``cross-bows'', so we'll have to stand that until tomorrow.

The Chair: Ms Phinney is giving notice that she is going to ask that all clauses with respect to cross-bows be stood. We'll have to do that as we call them, but are you agreed to stand this one because it includes cross-bows within it?

Amendment allowed to stand

[Translation]

The Chair: You might have other reasons.

[English]

Ms Phinney: Mr. Chairman, would you like me to mention the other ones I would like stood now or as we come to them?

The Chair: Can you do it briefly?

Ms Phinney: Yes. If you have the list, they are clause 4 where it says LP-1, clause 5 where it says LP-2, clause 7 where it says LP-3, and clause 8 where it says LP-4.

[Translation]

The Chair: I now have the names of Ms Venne and Mr. de Savoye. The clause has been stood.

Ms Venne: Fine. We can discuss this when we come back to it.

The Chair: Very well.

[English]

Mrs. Barnes (London West): Just as a point of information, does she also want to stand clause 7, page 8? Paragraph (d) also talks about cross-bows. That is an amendment I was going to bring.

The Chair: That's the difficulty. Ms Phinney said she had a list, but there may be other sections that she has missed.

Ms Phinney: Maybe we could do that if anybody sees that as we go along.

The Chair: I have another amendment, G-3, to clause 2. Is somebody prepared to move that?

Mr. Gallaway: I have only the French version of that. I don't have the English version of it.

[Translation]

The Chair: Mr. Gallaway, you could table the amendment if you wish.

.1505

[English]

Mr. Gallaway: [Inaudible]

The Chair: When you're raising your hand on a point of order, say ``point of order''; otherwise, I can't give you the floor. Was it a point of order?

Mr. Breitkreuz: It's a point of clarification. I don't know if that's a point of order or not, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: No, it isn't.

Mr. Breitkreuz: I have a question in regard to this second amendment that was made.

The Chair: The second one has been stood.

Mr. Breitkreuz: Pardon me, the third one.

The Chair: He has to be allowed to put it on the floor officially, and then you can ask for clarification. He hasn't moved it yet. It has no legal status before the committee.

I want to make that clear again. Even though you distributed some amendments in advance, they have no standing before the committee until you move them. Once he moves the amendment, then it has standing.

Mr. Breitkreuz: I'm looking at G-2.

The Chair: We're dealing with G-3. G-2 has been stood.

Mr. Gallaway, continue.

Mr. Gallaway: I move that clause 2 of Bill C-68 be amended (a) by adding immediately after line 37 on page 2 the following:

``customs office''

``bureau de douane"

``customs office'' has the meaning assigned by subsection 2(1) of the Customs Act

and (b) by striking out lines 41 to 43 on page 3.

It adds the definition of ``customs office'' and it removes ``customs officer'' on page 3.

The Chair: It's simply an amendment on the definition of a customs officer.

Mr. MacLellan: This has been requested by Revenue Canada and it's to embellish upon the definitions of ``export'' and ``import'' and make it clear that they include transit shipments and that import and export will now go into part III, so we'll just be left with -

Amendment agreed to on division

The Chair: We will stand clause 2, because there are some amendments that have been stood in the meanwhile.

Clause 2 allowed to stand

On clause 3 - Binding on Her Majesty

The Chair: Clause 3 deals with the exception for the Canadian Armed Forces of the provisions of this bill.

Mr. Ramsay, do you have an amendment?

Mr. Ramsay: The amendment reads that clause 3 be amended by striking out line 5 on page 4 and substituting the following:

Forces when acting in the course of their duties.

The reasoning behind that, Mr. Chairman, is that only forces personnel on duty should be exempt. The exemption should not cover activities of a personal or private nature.

Mr. MacLellan: It's intended in this bill to make the Canadian Forces, which maintain their own arsenal and accounting system, outside the ambit of the act. It should be noted that the members, in their personal capacity, are already picked up by the legislation. As it stands right now, we are referring to the Canadian Forces. We won't have that if we refer to them as individuals. It will diminish what we intended to obtain, yet what Mr. Ramsay is requesting is already covered in the bill, because they would be as individuals and not members of the Armed Forces.

Mr. Ramsay: This would clarify that there is no exemption for Armed Forces personnel when they are not engaged in official duties, that they would be treated exactly like other members of society.

.1510

Mr. MacLellan: According to orders made under the National Defence Act, Canadian Forces members are not permitted to possess military weapons, other than for the purposes of their duties. That's covered under the National Defence Act at present.

Mr. Ramsay: This amendment does not deal with just the prohibited firearms or military firearms. This deals with military personnel who are off duty, to ensure they're not exempt from using hunting rifles, other restricted firearms or registered firearms.

Mr. MacLellan: They're covered in their private capacity now under the act, as is anybody else in this country.

Amendment negatived

The Chair: Are there any other amendments to clause 3?

Mr. Ramsay: No.

Clause 3 agreed to on division

On clause 4 - Purpose

The Chair: With respect to clause 4, we have Ms Phinney's amendment.

Ms Phinney, that was one of your amendments that you wanted stood with respect to....

Ms Phinney: Yes, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: We also have a Bloc Québécois amendment. I go to the Bloc.

[Translation]

Ms Venne: Mr. Chairman, I would like this Bloc amendment to be stood because it refers to a major clause, clause 101.1, that should be discussed before we deal with this amendment.

[English]

The Chair: Should we stand clause 4 for the reasons given by Ms Phinney and Ms
Venne?

If I understand it correctly, Ms Phinney, LP-1 had to do with cross-bows. That was one of the amendments you wanted stood until later. Is that not correct?

Ms Phinney: Yes, Mr. Chairman.

Clause 4 allowed to stand

On clause 5 - Public Safety

The Chair: Clause 5 deals with licences to possess firearms. We have two amendments that were put on the table. The first is LP-2. Is LP-2 also an amendment dealing with...?

Ms Phinney: Yes, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Ramsay: Where is LP-2?

The Chair: It's in the package of amendments that were distributed by the clerk, in the same package as the government ones.

Mr. Breitkreuz: We have LP-1, but not LP-2.

Mr. Ramsay: I don't see LP at all, just government.

The Chair: Mr. Breitkreuz has said that he doesn't have LP-2. The clerk has it in his package, and it's in my package as well. Maybe there was some mistake in putting the packages together.

In any case, Ms Phinney has asked that it be stood because it deals with cross-bows, and she wants to deal with all the cross-bow matters together. We've agreed to that. But we also have a government amendment, G-4. There's also a BQ one to do first, BQ-2.

[Translation]

Mr. Langlois.

Mr. Langlois: I we look at clause 5, we find that, when delivering a licence, the chief firearms officer must take certain things into consideration. He must determine whether there has been a conviction for an offence in the commission of which violence against another person was used, threatened or attempted, or whether an offence under this act or Part III of the Criminal Code has been committed. I am talking about an offence under section 262. There is no need for me to read the whole of subsection 5(2).

The chief firearms officer or the provincial court judge reviewing the case must take these facts into consideration, but they are not bound by their conclusions.

.1515

The purpose of our amendment is to provide that the chief firearms officer or judge reviewing the decision of the firearms officer will be bound by what they find. What we suggest is that, if the chief firearms officer or the judge reviewing the case find in the file of the applicant an offence in the commission of which violence against another person was used, threatened or attempted, or else, under paragraph b), finds that there has been an offence under this Act or Part III of the Criminal Code, or that there has been an offence under section 264 of the Criminal Code (criminal harrassment), or an offence under subsection 39(1) or (2) or 48(1) or (2) of the Food and Drugs Act or subsection 4(1) or (2) or 5(1) of the Narcotic Control Act, the chief firearms officer or the judge reviewing the case will no longer have any discretion and will have to refuse to issue a licence if the applicant for a licence or an authorization has committed such an act during the last five years.

In paragraph (2) of our amendment, the chief firearms officer or the judge reviewing the case would have to consider whether the applicant has been treated for mental illness, which means that there would be a discretionary assessment of the mental state of the applicant, his past behaviour, and so on. We would like to have two types of provisions which would apply to treatment of an application by the chief firearms officer or the judge.

The bill now includes at large provisions which give absolute discretion to the chief firearms officer. He reviews the whole case and, and even though the applicant might be guilty of wrongdoings, he still has discretion to authorize delivery of a licence. What we would like would be that the controller be bound by his conclusions when offences which seem quite serious have been committed so that he would have to reject the application because such offences as those we mention appear on the file of the applicant.

[English]

The Chair: Is there any discussion on this?

There is a point of order.

Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Chairman, this is so significant to what we were discussing earlier. This is a substantial amendment, but we have not had a chance to examine it. All we can go by is the quick reading that we make of it and the explanation that has been given by the hon. member. I don't think that's fair.

We should have an opportunity to study these. There are some good ones coming forward, and we could support those. We can vote to defeat the weak ones. But we don't know what we're doing. I have no idea of the balance this amendment will bring to this bill. Listening to the explanation of my honourable colleague, it sounds reasonable to me. But I have not had time to study it. I would like that time.

The Chair: So you're requesting that this amendment be stood.

Mr. Ramsay: Whatever rule will allow us to examine -

The Chair: When you want to do that, that's what you should ask for. If that's what you want, simply ask for it.

Mr. Ramsay: Then we're going to be asking to stand them all - or not all, but -

The Chair: The committee may not agree to all of them, but if you make a case that one is very complicated and substantial, the committee may very well agree.

Mr. Ramsay: For the purposes of study, I'd ask in this case that this motion be stood.

The Chair: All right. We also have another amendment, though, G-4.

Mr. MacLellan: We had might as well stand clause 5.

The Chair: If there's another of a similar nature, it would be good for the committee to know that.

Mr. MacLellan: Yes, there is.

The Chair: Mr. Langlois has put his amendment on the table, and maybe the government should put on theirs so that the members of the committee will be able, if they stand them, to look at both of them. Is somebody ready to move G-4?

Mrs. Barnes (London West): I'll move G-4, which is on clause 5, page 6.

Essentially that's going to add to clause 5 of Bill C-68 new subclauses (3) and (4). Subclause (3) will allow the consideration of criminal records more than five years back. Subclause (4) will create an exception that would basically allow that that criterion need not apply, especially where the sixty-day licence for non-residents wishing to borrow or use a long gun in Canada is concerned.

.1520

The Chair: It seems to me it covers some of the same ground as Mr. Langlois's, and the purpose is similar.

Mrs. Barnes: It's very similar.

The Chair: There's been a request that we stand these two amendments and that we stand clause 5.

Mr. Wappel: I'm going to choose my words carefully. This, with great respect, in my opinion is not a clause that needs to be stood. I would think that it's very easy to understand. Perhaps when I state it and turn out to be wrong I might be a convert to standing it down, but, as I understand it, the Bloc's motion would make it absolutely mandatory, with no exceptions, that in the case of conviction under the Criminal Code there would be no issuing of a licence. There would be some discretion for mental illness, etc. The government amendment very clearly provides that you can go back beyond the five-year period and also provides the exception that was stated.

The Reform amendment wants to take out the five years altogether and simply leave it to the discretion of the firearms officer and make it go back fifteen years.

None of that, with great respect, is terribly complicated. I would urge the members that this might be a particular section that we could actually deal with.

Ms Phinney: I think we have already asked that clause 5 be stood, because it has something about the cross-bows.

The Chair: No, we've stood your particular.... We could still carry other parts but stand your.... Once carrying the amendments we wouldn't carry the whole clause; we would stand the clause. But we could deal with these amendments dealing with the point of how far the chief firearms officer should go back. There are three different -

Mr. Wappel: I didn't mean in any way to talk about the parts that had been stood down about crossbows.

The Chair: Well, there has been a request to stand it, and Mr. Wappel has argued against it. What is the wish of the committee? There are three choices. They all move in the same direction, but they have different approaches.

Mr. McLellan: We certainly would be prepared to deal with the amendments, but we would want the clause itself stood, because we're considering an aboriginal amendment to clause 5. So we would want a chance to amend the clause further.

The Chair: That would be something else. We could still deal with these.

Is there a consensus that we should stand the proposed amendments that request an extension of time beyond the five years?

Some hon. members: Yes.

The Chair: There has also been a request that we stand the entire clause.

Mr. Breitkreuz: I have a point of clarification. We just approved a motion by Ms Phinney that if there is any reference to cross-bows the clause should be stood. How can we go back on that? This refers to cross-bows; we have to stand the clause.

Not only that, but there's a request that clause 59 and the following clauses in Part III also have mentions of cross-bows in them: 109, 110, 111, 117.01, and 117.02. I think we have to stand all of those because they have the word ``cross-bow'' in them. We've already made that point.

The Chair: Yes, but that doesn't conflict with what we were doing. You could stand the entire clause and stand the proposed amendments with respect to cross-bows but accept or reject other amendments to the clause without dealing with the entire clause. In other words, that's what we did just previously. In other words, if there are four amendments to a particular clause and one is dealing with cross-bows, we stand the one on cross-bows and the whole clause, but we could deal with the other three. So when we come back to that clause we will have already accepted or rejected certain amendments and we will have made some progress.

I thought there was agreement that we should stand the amendments on the chief firearms officer, how far he should go back - five years or more - but if some people think that we've agreed to deal with that right now....

Some hon. members: Yes.

The Chair: If we do, then we would vote first on the Reform amendment. If it was carried, then that would settle that matter. If not, we'd then go to the Bloc amendment. If that carried, that would settle the matter. If not, then we would go to the government amendment.

So we're going to deal with your amendment on this matter.

.1525

Mr. Wappel: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if the Bloc is aware that their amendment is dealt with by the government amendment.

Mr. Breitkreuz: Bloc or Reform?

Mr. Wappel: Reform. Did I say Bloc?

Mr. Breitkreuz: Yes.

Mr. Wappel: Sorry, je m'excuse. The Reform amendment is dealt with by the government, and the government's amendment will permit the firearms officer to go back more than 5 years. If they're in agreement that the government amendment deals with it, I wonder if they're still going to move their amendment.

Mr. Breitkreuz: That's the problem with not having the government amendments before -

Mr. Wappel: But now we do, and we're taking our time. I'm just trying to determine if we need a vote or if Reform would be content not to move that amendment. That is basically what I am asking.

The Chair: I'll let them consider it, but we -

Mr. de Savoye: I have a point of order. Mr. Wappel said that we have in front of us the government amendment. Which one is that, G-4?

Mr. Wappel: G-4.

Mr. de Savoye: Okay, thank you. It's just to keep the record clear.

The Chair: We've had lots of discussion here. That was moved by Mrs. Barnes.

Mr. Ramsay: We'd be prepared to withdraw our motion on this particular clause because the spirit of our intent is contained within the government amendment.

The Chair: The government amendment allows them to go beyond 5 years.

Mr. Ramsay: Yes, and that's the intent of our amendment.

The Chair: All right.

Then we'll go to the Bloc amendment. You can, if you wish, move your amendment, and we'll accept or reject it. The choice is between your amendment and the government's amendment.

[Translation]

Ms Venne: The Bloc's amendment.

Mr. de Savoye: We aren't being asked to choose between two different things.

Mr. Langlois: We are not talking about the same thing.

The Chair: One part is almost identical.

[English]

Mr. de Savoye: It's two different topics.

[Translation]

The Chair: Very well. It's amendment BQ-2.

Ms Venne: Yes.

Mr. de Savoye: So when we have dealt with one, we will have dealt with the other.

The Chair: Do you have any statements to make in favour of this amendment or have you completed your discussion?

Mr. Langlois: Personally, Mr. Chairman, I had completed my argument in favour of the amendment earlier: the intent is to limit the powers of the Chief Firearms Officer, so that he cannot issue a permit if the person requesting the permit has committed certain offences, in case of an authorization - there are four possible cases in the Bill - and to give him discretion on the other points, such as assessing the applicant's mental health or passed behaviour, for instance.

I find it somewhat inconceivable that the Chief Firearms Officer may now, at his discretion, issue a permit to the applicant even if that person committed an offence with a weapon during the five previous years. I think that has to be a nullifying circumstance that totally prevents the comptroller from making a favourable decision with regard to the applicant, and the same should be true about any breach of the Firearms Act or of Part III of the Criminal Code, or of the provision contained in the Food and Drug Act, and criminal harassment. The intent is to remove that discretion from the Chief Firearms Officer.

[English]

The Chair: On a point of order, Mr. Ramsay.

Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Chairman, we have to reconsider our amendment because the government amendment only deals with one part of this area. Our amendment would deal not only with the Criminal Code offences and mental illness offences but also with the history of behaviour that includes violence. Our amendment would allow the chief firearms officer to consider offences or behaviour that was older than 5 years.

The Chair: Because it was done quickly, I will allow you to come back to that. We have the Bloc one before us now. We'll go back to you in a second.

Mr. Ramsay: Thank you.

The Chair: Mr. MacLellan, regarding BQ-2.

Mr. MacLellan: Mr. Chairman, I frankly favour the government amendment because I think there's more discretion. I think there has to be some discretion allowed. I don't think you can do away with all discretion. In BQ-2 there's not even discretion on discharges. Also, there's not discretion on the cases of needing to hunt for sustenance among the aboriginal people. I think it's just too cut and dried. I think minimal discretion is required in this situation.

[Translation]

The Chair: Ms Venne.

Ms Venne: We are discussing both amendments, the government's and our own.

The Chair: No, only yours, now.

.1530

Ms Venne: Only ours?

The Chair: Yes.

Ms Venne: It seems that in light of the government's amendment, I would be commenting it. So, should I wait or should I speak now?

The Chair: If it is related to your amendment, go ahead.

Ms Venne: Yes, necessarily so, since we are discussing the same clause. The government is talking about going beyond the five year period in examining a person's record. There would be no limit there. I wonder whether that clause is truly constitutional, since they are proposing access that goes beyond the five year period, with limits. I think it is not. One has to set some kind of limits; here, there is none. That is why I'm against this amendment.

[English]

The Chair: Perhaps we should have a response from the government officials. It was asked whether, because it's unlimited, it's unconstitutional.

Mr. MacLellan: No, Mr. Chairman, that's not correct. The minister said he would make it clear that firearms officers could go back more than 5 years. That's what he's doing in this clause. Subclause 5(2) says it must go back more than 5 years; Subclause 5(3) says it may go back further.

This is the amendment proposed by the Canadian Police Association pretty well as they recommended it.

Subclause 5(4) talks about visitors who can get a licence for 60 days, which is referring to section 72.

The Chair: Is there any further discussion?

Mr. Breitkreuz: Yes, I have a question, Mr. Chairman. Legal counsel can possibly answer this.

In regard to this and what we are doing, it is an offence under the act, as it presently is worded, that if you fail to register your firearm, you have committed a criminal offence.

How does that tie together with this section? If you fail to register your firearm, that would be a criminal offence, and then you could never get a licence. Therefore, you would lose all your firearms because you have a criminal record and could not get a licence.

The Chair: Maybe we'll first hear from the government officials, then legislative counsel.

Mr. MacLellan: Mr. Chairman, that's the effect of their motion.

The Chair: The effect of...?

Mr. MacLellan: The Reform one.

The Chair: I see, but not yours.

Mr. MacLellan: No.

The Chair: We're dealing with the Bloc Québécois.

Mr. MacLellan: The Bloc motion, yes. There's no discretion allowed at all in the Bloc motion.

Mr. Breitkreuz: What I'd like to know from legal counsel or from the official party is what the effect is of having or not having the amendment? How is that going to affect a firearms owner if he fails to register? Do you understand the question? Will that then mean he will never be able to obtain a licence if he has failed to register?

The Chair: We're talking about the proposed Bloc amendment.

Mr. Breitkreuz: Yes.

The Chair: You've heard the question of Mr. Breitkreuz.

Mr. MacLellan: Yes. With respect to the Bloc amendment, there's no discretion at all, no licence. With the 5 years, there's no -

The Chair: Including the offence referred to by Mr. Breitkreuz.

Mr. MacLellan: Yes.

The Chair: So if there's an offence for non-registration, that would prevent, in your view, the individual from ever getting a licence.

Mr. MacLellan: It's subparagraph 5(2)(a)(ii):

(ii) an offence under this Act or Part III of the Criminal Code,

This would be sections 91 and 92 of the Criminal Code.

[Translation]

The Chair: Do the Legal Advisors have something to say?

[English]

Ms Diane McMurray (Legislative Counsel): There's a vast difference between this and what the government is doing.

The Chair: When you say ``you'', you mean the Bloc Québécois.

Ms McMurray: Yes, the Bloc. What the Bloc is doing here in this amendment is essentially taking away any discretion. That is, you shall not be able to get a licence. You shall not be eligible if you commit one of these offences within the previous 5 years. So when this investigation is being done, if you violated, within the previous 5 years, Part III of the Criminal Code, which of course contains a possession offence and owning a registration certificate, then that would be a crime.

.1535

Going back to the 5 years, if you were caught within that 5 years and you had essentially violated sections 91 or 92 of the Code, you would be caught here and you would not be eligible for a license.

[Translation]

The Chair: Do you have a reply, Mr. Langlois?

Mr. Langlois: Yes, Mr. Chairman. It should be mentioned in the overall context of our study, that we are going to propose, a little further along, that the fact of not having a license or a firearms authorization be decriminalized. Thus, the instances mentioned are not of particular concern to us.

It might be good to stand the cause while we await the outcome of the decriminalization proposal because if the committee passes the Bloc's amendment now and later decides to maintain the criminalization of shoulder weapon possession, the amendment would have a perverse effect and we would be faced with the problem our legislative counsel has indeed raised. Perhaps, then, we should stand...

[English]

Mr. Wappel: Mr. Chairman, first of all, I want to apologize to the Reform Party for my comments with respect to their amendment because, indeed, as you've pointed out, it's quite correct. There's a slight nuance there that would be different. So I apologize for what I said earlier.

As I read the Bloc amendment, an offence within the last 5 years under this act, which would be the firearms act, would automatically prohibit someone from receiving a license.

Say we were to accept the Bloc's decriminalization amendment, which we haven't seen yet because we haven't got to it, since we're dealing with a particular act. It would either have to be under Part III or under the firearms act, since that's all we're dealing with.

If the person violated either of those sections, either in the firearms act or in Part III, they're still violating the act or Part III, whether or not it's decriminalized. By their very amendment, if that occurred within 5 years, there would be a mandatory prohibition from issuing a license.

That is exactly the kind of rigidity we don't need, I would argue, and why we need to keep discretion with the firearms officer. That's why I would oppose the Bloc amendment.

[Translation]

The Chair: Are you ready to vote on the proposed amendment?

Mr. de Savoye.

Mr. de Savoye: Mr. Chair, whether failure to register a firearm is or is not a criminal offence, will affect how I vote on the amendment before us, because of the intent. Thus, until we have dealt with the firearms criminalization or decriminalization, a matter of substance, I will not be ready to vote. I ask that the amendment be stood.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. de Savoye has made a request that amendment BQ-2 be stood because it depends, to a great extent, on whether or not we pass the proposal they have, which will come later, on decriminalizing the whole business of registration. Is there agreement to stand BQ-2?

Mr. MacLellan: As far as I'm concerned, it wouldn't matter whether they were successful in having that passed or not. This motion is not acceptable. I don't see how that's going to make any difference.

Mr. de Savoye: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I'm sure the witness doesn't mean that he doesn't care about my vote, because I do care.

The Chair: If I understood Mr. MacLellan, he would vote against it on other grounds even if your further amendment carried.

Mr. MacLellan: What I'm trying to say, Mr. Chairman, is it's still an offence whether the deferred subsequent motion of the Bloc passes or not. That's what I'm saying. I certainly wouldn't want to cast any aspersions on my colleague, Mr. de Savoye. I don't want to say that his opinion and his vote isn't important, because it is.

The Chair: I understand there's some disagreement to standing this one.

Mr. MacLellan: If it's the wish of the committee, I'm prepared to.... We're going to stand this section anyway. I have no major problem with standing that.

.1540

The Chair: It's been asked that we stand this one. Reform's amendment covers similar territory and so does G-4. Do you want to stand them all?

Mr. Ramsay: Yes, we'd be prepared to deal with ours.

The Chair: Go ahead.

Mr. Wappel: Mr. Chairman, I would request a vote on BQ-2 please.

The Chair: The first question was Mr. de Savoye's.

All those in favour of standing BQ-2? All those opposed to standing BQ-2?

We won't stand BQ-2, so we'll vote on BQ-2 first. Then we would go to your amendment after.

All those in favour of BQ-2?

[Translation]

Mr. Langlois: Mr. Chair, on a point of order. I understood that we were voting on Mr. de Savoye's motion, whose intent was to stand BQ-2.

The Chair: That's it.

Mr. Langlois: Then, if it is stood, we won't vote on BQ-2 now.

The Chair: Exactly.

Ms Venne: We lost it.

The Chair: They decided to vote on BQ-2. It was the opposite. They voted against Mr. de Savoye's proposition to stand the vote on BQ-2.

Mr. Langlois: Mr. Chair, that doesn't put an end to the debate on the merit of the amendment. We are going to vote on BQ-2 and with the comments expressed by Mr. Wappel and with whom I completely agree, the part that is under b), that is ``an offence under this Act or Part III of the Criminal Code'', should be taken out of the BQ-2 amendment. Therefore, I agree with Mr. Wappel's argument and I'm asking for the members' consent on the striking out of paragraph b) and to give in that case some discretion to the chief firearms controller.

The Chair: If I understand you correctly, you are proposing a sub-amendment which would strike out b).

Mr. Langlois: Yes.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Langlois has taken out part (b) of his proposed amendment. Is there any discussion on his proposed amendment as amended?

[Translation]

Yes, Mr. Langlois.

Mr. Langlois: On a point of order. If I understand correctly, if we suppress b) and want to give back some discretion to the chief firearms controller, we'll put that in c), on page 2 of the BQ-2. There should be a c) that would essentially use the wording of b). The chief firearms officer will be allowed to take into account an offence under this Act or Part III of the Criminal Code. In that case, he won't be bound but we'll have to take it into account.

[English]

The Chair: You now have Bloc amendment BQ-2 as amended in which paragraph 5(1.1)(b) has been eliminated. Is there any further discussion on this?

Mr. MacLellan: It still doesn't deal with the problem of aboriginal youth and their right to hunt for sustenance. I still have a problem with it, frankly.

The Chair: Is there any further discussion?

[Translation]

Mr. de Savoye: Mr. Chair, could we clarify?

[English]

Could you clarify what you mean exactly? Where is this actually addressed in front of us?

Mr. MacLellan: It's the prohibition. The absolute nature of the prohibition does not allow for native hunting for sustenance for those who need that right.

I would like to ask Mr. Mosley to speak to this as well.

Mr. Richard Mosley (Assistant Deputy Minister, Criminal and Social Policy Sector, Department of Justice): The concern is that the definition in paragraph 5(1.1)(a) is extremely broad:

(a) an offence in the commission of which violence against another person was used, threatened, or attempted;

To illustrate, a conviction for common assault would appear to satisfy that. It would not just be a conviction, but also in the case in which the person has been found guilty and given an absolute or conditional discharge.

.1545

The concern then - this is the example used by Mr. MacLellan - is that you could have someone, perhaps an aboriginal youth, who relies on firearms for sustenance purposes, convicted of a common assault, who would then be precluded for 5 years from obtaining a licence.

The conviction is a matter that should be taken into consideration, but we believe the discretion as to whether or not to issue should remain with the firearms officer.

[Translation]

Mr. Langlois: Yes Mr. Chair.

The Chair: I thought you had...

Mr. Langlois: I was waiting for the interpreter to finish.

Mr. Chairman, when in (a), there is reference to an offence, this implies a verdict or an admission of guilt on the part of the accused. As far as I know, one does not sentence people who have been acquitted in this country. Therefore, a person who has been acquitted does not come under paragraph a).

The offence must have been committed. If it has been committed, then a court must recognize that fact. I don't see how one can sentence a person who has been acquitted. I don't see how you can demonstrate that, unless it is a new sort of law.

Are we trying to create two classes of citizens? I would like to know too if we could allow aboriginal people to have a licence even though they have committed was an offence in which violence was used or attempted, whereas other people could not use the same arguments to get a licence. I think there is a pretty immediate need of clarification if we want to go through that bill and understand it.

[English]

Mr. Mosley: I'll just stress that this could be any offence, whether a firearm is used or not. It could be as simple as a common assault that's no more than a punch in the nose.

Mr. MacLellan: Mr. Chairman, there are a lot of ridings represented by members in which there is the odd scuffle, let's say. They start very innocently enough in a variety of places. Usually they end amicably; sometimes they don't. But to say that there would be a prohibition of a firearm in every case in which a charge has been laid after such an event would be very drastic in many parts of this country.

Ms Meredith: I'd like to follow up on the Bloc. What I'm hearing from the government distresses me. We heard witnesses who were concerned about domestic assaults in the home. What I'm hearing from the government is that if a person is aboriginal and needs a firearm for sustenance, for putting food on the table, then they will be treated differently than any white person who might have the same conviction.

That causes me concern. I see abuses to this act if it's not spelled out very clearly what it is that the government means.

I think one of the concerns we heard from witnesses was that there is spousal assault and threatening because firearms are in the home. Now you're telling us that a native or aboriginal person might be treated differently from a member of the non-native community.

Mr. MacLellan: I appreciate the concern. Ms Meredith, certainly we don't want to in any way condone spousal assault. We're not doing that under this act. We've stated many times that one of the reasons we wanted the registration system was because of spousal assault.

However, we don't want, if we can avoid it, to have an incident that would bring into effect the disqualification from the use of a firearm in which we really didn't intend it. That's what we have to be careful of here. While we certainly don't condone spousal assault, we don't want to bring in something that is going to prohibit not only aboriginals, but anyone who has to hunt for sustenance and can make that point.

When firearms are not involved in a scuffle, we don't want to have that person prohibited from using a firearm. We're not saying we want to treat all cases of violent assault assault that way, but we want to leave some discretion.

We feel we have to leave some discretion in order to have this bill respected in particularly this area. That's why we don't want to go with BQ-2.

.1550

Ms Meredith: So do we have assurance from the government that this application would apply to all Canadians equally, not just to the aboriginal community?

Mr. MacLellan: Yes.

Ms Meredith: So the courts would not look at this only from an aboriginal point of view?

Mr. MacLellan: Yes, you have that assurance.

Ms Meredith: Thank you.

The Chair: That's going to come in your amendment.

Mr. MacLellan: Yes.

The Chair: Is there any further discussion on the Bloc amendment?

[Translation]

Mr. de Savoye: Mr. Chairman, I would like to note that the witness has mentioned that somebody who would have punched someone on the nose would come under that section; this will happen only if that person has been criminally convicted for that punch. One has to admit that the intent of this act is to make sure that violence does not go all the way to gunshots causing wounds and possibly deaths.

How many scuffles have started with punches and ended in a blood bath? I think the intent of the act is to reduce violence. The amendment proposed by the Bloc goes in that direction.

On a larger plane, Mr. Chairman, if we give judges full discretion in that respect, we'll see disparities accross the land and from region to region, because judges might be pressured by their surrounding or the media to hand down heavier sentences, whereas others, subjected to less pressure, or for whatever reason, would be more inclined to pass lighter sentences.

There are precedents for that. If you look for example at driving permits. Somebody who drives with impaired capabilities and who does not cause any harm to anyone, but who is stopped by the police, will lose his license, even though he needs his car to earn a living, and that for a fairly long period. This applies to all, regardless of trade or profession.

Why then should we make a distinction in the case at hand? Why should we grant a preferred status to some? Why should we allow a judge to be more or less lenient given the objectives we're trying to realize. Thank you Mr. Chairman.

[English]

The Chair: You have put your case very well, but it seems there is further discussion.

Mr. Mosley: As a matter of clarification, I certainly didn't wish to diminish the seriousness of any degree of violence. However, the range of conduct covered by the Criminal Code is so broad that the particular circumstances of a case may not be so serious as to require this consequence. The consequence, which would be made mandatory by this amendment, may be considerably disproportionate to the actual penalty received for the act that constitutes the offence.

I use the illustration of a common assault as one example in which the refusal of a license for a period of 5 years may be far greater than the actual penalty received for that offence.

The Chair: Is there further discussion? It seems there is an honest division of opinion on this, so perhaps we should vote. All those in favour of BQ-2 as amended? All those opposed?

Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings]

The Chair: We now go to the Reform Party proposal on this matter.

Mr. Ramsay: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Our motion would amend subclause 5(2) by striking out lines 17 and 18 on page 5 and substituting the following:

regard to whether the person,

We've discussed the rationale in the Bloc's motion. The question is: why is there a limitation of only 5 years if the chief firearms officer feels that, taking into regard behaviour that occurred six years ago, an individual in possession of a firearm may be dangerous to society or to himself?

We think this would give greater discretion to ensure that the intent and spirit of this particular section is met, which is to keep firearms out of the hands of people who would use them in a dangerous manner.

.1555

I would like to add that, as far as the suggestion with regard to the aboriginal people, or anyone, using firearms for sustenance, surely the chief firearms officer would not allow a person to have a permit or a licence simply because they use the firearm for sustenance if their behaviour and their record indicated it was likely, or probable, or possible that they would use the firearm in a manner dangerous to themselves or others.

Mr. MacLellan: Mr. Chairman, this amendment in subclause 5(2) would erase the words:

regard to whether the person, within the previous 5 years,

It would apply to subparagraphs 5(2)(a), (b) and (c) and it would take away the five-year requirement from those three sections so you could go back indefinitely.

I feel that's excessive, particularly with respect to subparagraph 5(2)(b), which says:

(b) has been treated for a mental illness, whether in a hospital, mental institute, psychiatric clinic or otherwise and whether or not the person was confined to such a hospital, institute or clinic, that was associated with violence or threatened or attempted violence on the part of the person against any person;

I think there has to be some discretion there or else we're saying that people who have mental illnesses just never recover. To ask somebody whether they had mental problems sometime in their life, while it may be pertinent in a great number of cases, really isn't warranted. For that reason, I have a problem with this amendment.

Mr. Wappel: I have pretty well the same point. I want to understand what the Reform Party is saying.

As I understand the amendment, the chief firearms officer could go back virtually to the birth of the individual - I'm exaggerating, of course - and examine anything that happened to that person. This includes some of the things we've talked about, such as perhaps a common assault when they were 19, and they're now 39. The chief firearms officer could say no.

Under this amendment moved by the Reform Party, the individual's only recourse would then be to proceed to a court application paid for by that individual against the state to show cause why they should have a licence after having a conviction twenty years ago for smoking marijuana.

I believe this is the effect of the Reform amendment because the only recourse to a turn-down - I ask the government officials to correct me if I'm wrong - is to proceed to section 72 application. As I understand the Reform Party amendment, it would mean that anything anybody did either under the Criminal Code, under this act, in a mental hospital, or at any time in their life, could be reason enough for a firearms officer to refuse a licence. This would thereby require the person, if they didn't like that, to proceed to the provincial court.

Is that the intent of the amendment of the Reform Party?

Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Chairman, I find that we're arguing in favour of what the whole intent of the government's bill is, which is to keep firearms out of the hands of people who may appear to be dangerous. We are in support of that.

Let's not look 20 years back; let's look 6 years back. The limitation of the present bill is only 5 years, so the chief firearms officer can only take into consideration or have regard for anything that's happened within the last 5 years.

.1600

But what about incidents that have occurred over 6 years or 5.5 years in which, taking into regard all considerations, the chief firearms officer feels there would be a danger? Why do we stop it at 5 years?

Why not give the chief firearms officer the discretion - we're giving him the discretion within the first 5 years - to go back beyond 5 years if it may save lives? If he feels he wants to go back 20 years, and if there are justifiable reasons, using that discretion, for preventing a person from having a firearm, then why should we not empower him, through this act, to do that?

Mr. MacLellan: Mr. Chairman, the discretion doesn't lie with the Reform amendment; it lies with the bill as it exists right now. The Reform amendment would say:

a provincial court judge shall have regard to whether the person,

Then paragraph 5(2)(b), as an example, says:

(b) has been treated for a mental illness,

There's no alternative. If somebody has been treated for mental illness, it has to be a primary consideration.

But what we're saying is that you can go back more than 5 years; it's just that you have to go back 5 years. There's nothing to stop the judge from going back beyond 5 years. We're not saying that it's only 5 years.

Really, the discretion is there now, but it wouldn't be if the Reform amendment was adopted.

Mr. Breitkreuz: Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the legislative counsel for their interpretation. We're debating a point here on which I think they could enlighten us as to what effect this would have. Would the judge or the chief firearms officer still have the discretion as to whether he would issue a licence, with the amendment we're proposing? What effect would our amendment have on this matter?

Ms McMurray: May I be frank with the committee? First, we're discussing two amendments, so I think I have to address both of them. If I'm out of order -

The Chair: It would come after theirs.

Ms McMurray: Are we discussing the Reform amendment or are we discussing the government amendment?

The Chair: We're discussing the Reform amendment. But Mr. MacLellan was referring to his amendment, which might come if theirs is defeated.

Mr. MacLellan: Or as it is now.

The Chair: Or even as it is now.

Ms McMurray: Because they are so interrelated, I think I need to refer to both of them.

The Reform amendment would essentially say that the firearms officer would have to have regard - it would be mandated - and shall have regard with any of the things listed, without reference to the 5 years. So he could go back 6, 10 or 15 years in relation to all of them.

The Chair: He would ``have to''?

Ms McMurray: ``Shall''. They haven't taken out the word ``shall''. From what I can see, ``shall'' is still in there.

The government, on the other hand, is doing something that, it seems to me, is somewhat academic. If you look at clauses 53 and 54, it seems to me that you already have the power to go back beyond the 5 years.

The way it's currently drafted, all clause 5 is saying is that you ``shall have regard'' to the things listed within the previous 5 years. If you look at clauses 53 and 54 of the bill, nothing prevents any firearms officer from going back prior to the 5 years for anything listed here, or for any other reason that would make the person ineligible or, in other words, not desirable for having a firearm.

Therefore, if I'm not going too far, I see no purpose in the government's amendment, since it seems to me that you already have the power.

In fact, if I may be so bold, the government may in fact be creating a problem for itself. I'm just suggesting this; I didn't draft it. But just looking at it as a drafter, it may be creating a situation in which, saying that you may go back prior to the 5 years for paragraph 5(2)(a) only, the court might read that as meaning that you cannot go back under clauses 53 and 54 for the purposes of paragraphs 5(2)(b) and 5(2)(c) beyond the five-year period because you've specifically addressed paragraph 5(2)(a).

By the conspicuous absence of paragraphs 5(2)(b) and 5(2)(c), you may be prevented from going back under clauses 53 and 54.

That could be a possible fallout of this amendment. The government may want to put its mind to that, even though I don't work for the government.

.1605

The Chair: You work for Parliament.

Ms McMurray: That's not quite the same thing. I work for the House of Commons. That's a legislative branch of the government. I do not - I repeat - I do not work for the executive.

The Chair: That's right. We understand that. We've heard your answer with respect to the Reform amendment. Is there further discussion on that?

We've also had the legislative counsel's interpretation of G-4, which is the government one, but we're not yet dealing with it. We'll only deal with it if this motion is defeated. If it's passed, we won't bother dealing with G-4. Are you ready for the vote?

All those in favour of the Reform amendment, please raise your hand. All those opposed?

Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings]

We will now call on the government to deal with its amendment G-4. Who is going to move that? It's been moved by Mrs. Barnes.

Mr. MacLellan, you've heard the comments by Ms McMurray, the legislative counsel.

Mr. MacLellan: Yes. I think she's right, frankly. I'm going to check on that, if you don't mind.

Mrs. Barnes: I would just like a clarification here. In light of what legislative counsel has said, I say that this was put in for clarification and to basically respect the Canadian Police Association and what they had to say to us.

I see the argument she's put forward. I would like to hear from the government. I would be prepared to withdraw subclause 5(3) and make my subclause 5(4) into subclause 5(3), but I would like your ideas on that before I do.

Mr. Mosley: I'd like to compliment the legislative counsel because I think the point she's made is absolutely correct. In fact, I think it would cause more difficulty for the government in the interpretation of clause 5 as a whole.

With regard to subclause 5(3), I think it's actually a response to the CACP, not the CPA proposal, but that does not apply to what is proposed in G-4 as subclause 5(4), which is another matter entirely.

Mrs. Barnes: My question to you is whether you would be in agreement with dropping subclause 5(3) and creating what was subclause 5(4) as the new subclause 5(3) so we don't get into numbering problems?

I'm amending the amendment. So it's a subamendment withdrawing subclause 5(3), keeping what was subclause 5(4) and renumbering it as subclause 5(3). Is that agreed?

The Chair: Is that agreed? In the government's amendment G-4, it's being decided not to proceed with subclause 5(3) but to keep subclause 5(4).

Perhaps, Mrs. Barnes, you could explain what subclause 5(4) does so that people will have clear in their minds what's left in this proposed amendment.

Mrs. Barnes: I basically explained it once before. It has to do with non-residents coming into the country who are on a sixty-day licence and planning to use a long gun or borrow the use of a long gun in the country.

It allows the criterion of looking back at their records. It says ``may'' as opposed to ``requiring'', because it could otherwise be very difficult for non-residents to enter the country, especially if they're coming up here for an outfitting vacation of something like that.

That type of record check may not be possible; it may be desirable. When it can be done, obviously it can still be done, but it doesn't require it to be done. It uses the word ``may'' so it creates an exception.

If there is any further clarification needed, maybe counsel can add to that.

Mr. MacLellan: Mrs. Barnes is absolutely correct, Mr. Chairman. What we're trying to do is to not interfere with those who come to Canada to hunt for recreational purposes and who add a great deal to the economy of this country.

.1610

Mr. Ramsay: My question is whether or not non-residents coming into Canada with firearms will be required to undergo background checks as required under clause 5? Will they or will they not have to undergo the background checks under clause 5 and clauses 53 and 54 as well?

Mr. MacLellan: It's optional, Mr. Chairman, but it doesn't mean necessarily.... I will let Mr. Mosley give a more detailed account.

Mr. Mosley: The effect of new subclause 5(3) would be to make that a matter for the discretion of either the chief firearms officer or, if there was an application for a reference under clause 72, a provincial court judge could have regard to the criteria set out in subclause 5(2), including a check of criminal records and other provisions relating to mental illness and/or the history of behaviour.

Mr. Ramsay: So that means subclause 5(3) will then provide for the legislative means and authority, under clause 5, to conduct checks on non-residents coming into Canada with firearms. That's what I understand. People coming into the country can be subjected to the check or the requirements of clause 5, which is the criminal background check, the mental health check, as well as the neighbourhood background check. Do I understand that this is now provided for in this amendment as an option?

Mr. MacLellan: I'm not sure it's limited to the person who's actually coming in with a firearm. It may be a non-resident who is in Canada at a hunting camp perhaps and who is applying for a sixty-day licence to use a firearm that is present at that location.

There are other motions in the government package that would make it clear that such a person could borrow a firearm that would be on-site at an outfitter's camp for example. So it's not necessarily only the person who's coming across with a firearm.

The key here is that in applying for that sixty-day licence, the chief firearms officer can have regard to the criteria.

Some of these criteria may not be applicable. Non-resident A, for example, may never have been convicted or discharged under section 36 of the Criminal Code, etc., or have committed an offence under this act or Part III of the Criminal Code, but there may be a possibility of checking through the CPIC system into the American National Criminal Information System for information that would fall under paragraph 5(2)(c). So that information or possibility is there, but if it is impractical in the circumstances, there is an out; it doesn't have to be done under this.

Mr. Ramsay: That answers my question. Thank you.

Mr. Breitkreuz: I have a question on that.

The Chair: I'll go to you in due course. First I have Mr. de Savoye.

[Translation]

Mr. de Savoye: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I would like to be sure I understand what would happen in the case of a hunter coming, for example, from the United States. The hunter would apply for permission to use a firearm for a 60 day period. The chief firearms officer would examine his request, but if my understanding of your amendment is correct, you wouldn't be obligated to ensure that the individual has not been convicted of a violent crime and that his record doesn't present the blots that we usually look out for.

.1615

That would mean that the American hunter would get preferential treatment compared to the Canadian hunter. Or perhaps the Canadian might be refused a licence whereas the American, in the same circumstances, would probably be granted one. Is my understanding of the amendment correct?

[English]

Mr. MacLellan: Concerning Mr. de Savoye's point, Mr. Chairman, there are differences here. One is that we've extended the welcome to those from outside our country to come to Canada to hunt. We've made the overtures to them. We expect those who come into this country to be honourable citizens of their country.

Also, those who do come are the guests of outfitters and guides and innkeepers, who quite often are prepared to oversee the hunting activities and the use of firearms by these people. In most cases, these people do not bring a firearm with them; the firearm is with the Canadian who will allow this person to use the firearm while they're in Canada. Also, it's for a sixty-day period, with the possibility of an extension.

We're not distinguishing here. When we give licences to Canadians, we give them for 5 years. In this case, we're giving them for 60 days to people who are in the country for a short period of time and who will be using that firearm in conjunction with Canadians who are professionals in their own right and who will be overseeing the activities of this person.

Mr. Breitkreuz: My question ties in with this discussion. I am wondering about the consistency in the application, because Mr. MacLellan said this would be optional.

In practical terms, I am wondering how this will work out. One thing I do know is that many American hunters who come up here will bring two, three or maybe more firearms with them.

If this is optional in its application, what assurance do we have there will be some consistency across the country in its application? Has the committee worked out any guidelines in this regard? What regulations would there be?

Maybe legislative counsel again will be able to enlighten us as to whether there will be some difficulties in its application.

And there will be a double standard in its application for Canadians and Americans.

Mr. MacLellan: There's no double standard, Mr. Chairman. Subclause 5(1), at the very beginning, states that:

5.(1) A person is not eligible to hold a licence if it is desirable, in the interests of the safety of that or any other person, that the person not possess a firearm, a cross-bow, a prohibited weapon, a restricted weapon, a prohibited device, ammunition or prohibited ammunition.

We are saying that we have to couch it in different terms for the purposes of visitors. We're not giving different rights to visitors of Canada. We are saying that those who want to come to Canada and use weapons that are allowed and lawful in Canada, can come and hunt as they always have. We're not going to throw roadblocks in their way and ruin the livelihood of those who have been involved with hunting and bringing foreigners into Canada for hunting purposes for countless years. That's not the intention.

We are saying that we're leaving it open to make those checks. As subclause 5(1) says, we have to be mindful of the possibility. It is just not going to be automatic.

[Translation]

The Chair: Do you have any other questions, Mr. de Savoye?

Mr. de Savoye: Mr. MacLellan, you say that hunters coming here from foreign countries will use their firearms under the supervision of professionals. That is the case if they stay at a hunting camp, but a good many American hunters who come here have no dealings at all with outfitters. I'm thinking, for example, of the border between the State of Maine and the Beauce region, that is easy to cross in both directions.

.1620

That having been said, I'm requesting this clarification simply so that everyone is well aware of the conseqences of the acceptance of this clause, but not with a view to discussing its merits.

My understanding is that the foreign hunter would be entitled to a 60 day licence with a minimum of questions being asked, except if there were serious reasons for not granting him a licence, in which case the competent authority would be in a position to say no. But, as a rule, there wouldn't be any road blocks and the hunter could obtain a licence quite quickly. Am I right in saying that that is the object of this clause in the bill...

[English]

Mr. MacLellan: We are saying we don't want to interfere in something that's been working very well. Those Americans - and we use the term ``Americans'' because Mr. de Savoye has used that term - who come into Canada have not caused problems. Hunters who come here for purposes of hunting have not committed homicides, robbed banks or anything such as that. They've hunted in accordance with the laws and have been model visitors to our country.

They've added to the economy of this country. At this point, why would we want to cast aspersions or even suggestions that this would no longer continue? We just don't feel that is warranted in this case.

Mr. Breitkreuz: Mr. Chairman, that brings up another question I have on the same point. It does not appear there's anything in here that gives them the assurance this will or will not necessarily apply. It seems it still is optional. Will they be informed as to whether there are some background checks being made on them? You will scare them off simply by the fact that the provision is there that is optional, if you understand the concern I have. Is there anything in here that protects them from those kinds of background checks? I'm not clear about that.

Mr. MacLellan: Mr. Chairman, I want to make one comment and then I will ask Mr. Mosley to comment.

In subclause (3) it says ``a chief firearms officer or, on a reference under section 72, a provincial court judge may'' but need not have regard to the criteria. First of all, we're saying ``may'', that they don't have to do it. Then we're saying ``but need not have regard to''. We've done it twice here to try to make it seem as though...look, if somebody is here who we have reason to believe is a dangerous person in Canada or is going to commit a crime in Canada or is somebody who really shouldn't have a firearm, we've guarded and retained the right to make the inquiry necessary. But to those who want to come in and lawfully hunt, who are model visitors to Canada, we are saying ``may'' and then we say ``but need not have regard to''. We've done it twice. I can't think how we can word it any more openly and yet retain the right to make those inquiries where we feel they're necessary.

The Chair: I'll go to Mr. Mosley

[Translation]

followed by Mr. de Savoye.

[English]

Mr. Mosley: Perhaps just for clarification. I think in most cases where someone is coming up to Canada to hunt they are going to arrive at the border with a firearm or firearms. Then sections 34 and 35 would apply to them. They declare the firearm to a customs officer in the prescribed manner, etc., and the declaration would be confirmed. Under clause 35 of the bill they would then in effect have authorization to import, which will have the same effect as a licence for that and a registration certificate for the firearm for a term of 60 days.

When they apply for that declaration - they may apply in advance or they may show up at the border and say they want to go into northern Ontario to hunt - there will be a records check made on them. They're not just going to come across the border. I think there was evidence to that effect by Revenue Canada, and there's an officer from that department here today if you need further information. There will be a records check. I don't think there will be any mistake about that.

In that respect they will be treated the same as any Canadian, but of course there will be a records check made of the information that is available to Customs and Exise about their foreign convictions, if any.

.1625

All we're suggesting is that with regard to the person who does show up here and wants to hunt, if clause 5 is applicable to them because they want to borrow a firearm and apply for a temporary licence, then in most cases, if it's feasible to do so, there should be a records check made on them. If that information is available, it will be done electronically and very quickly.

It may not be possible in every case to do so, in which case there should be some discretion to waive that requirement. Presumably this is not going to be the norm. The norm will be a records check, the same as for any Canadian who applies for a licence to possess a firearm.

[Translation]

Mr. de Savoye: I appreciate that clarification. The American citizen who appears at the Canadian border, whether he wants to come to Canada to hunt or for some other reason, has his identity verified by the immigration officer and a check is done in records we share with the American authorities in order to ensure that there is no reason to not accept him into the country. There have been cases, even recently, where individuals were refused entry for very trivial reasons, and perhaps our records are too detailed and filter out people who should be entitled to come to Canada.

I understand that the fact that you hold a license - and you will tell me if I'm right in this - doesn't automatically authorize you to go across the border. There is still a filter mechanism that allows you to verify if the individual is persona grata in Canada. Is that correct?

[English]

Mr. Mosley: Yes.

Mr. de Savoye: Thank you.

Mr. Breitkreuz: Just a point of clarification. I understand we would then be relying on the information supplied by the American authorities. Is that correct, that you have to rely on that information?

Mr. MacLellan: Yes.

Mr. Breitkreuz: I had asked the question previously about whether legislative counsel agrees with the interpretation we have on this optional aspect.

The Chair: Legislative counsel, if you wish.

Mr. Côté: I'm not too sure what the question was.

The Chair: The question was whether you agree with the interpretation he's made of -

Mr. Breitkreuz: With regard to the optional application and so on, as you see it, are there going to be difficulties in the practical application of this across the country?

Ms McMurray: Mr. Chairman, that's an administrative matter and administrators would be in a much better position to answer that question than I would. I know almost nothing about the administration of gun control legislation. I think that would be a question more appropriately answered by an administrator.

Mr. Breitkreuz: Is there an administrator who can answer that?

The Chair: The administrator is there before you.

We are voting on amendment G-4 as amended because the first part, which was designated subclause 5(3), has been deleted. Now subclause 5(4) has become subclause 5(3) in amendment G-4.

Amendment agreed to

The Chair: We've agreed to stand this clause 5 as a whole because it has something to do with cross-bows.

Clause 5 allowed to stand

The Chair: At this point I'm going to ask the committee if they would mind adjourning for five minutes because the chair has been sitting in this chair for two and a half hours.

.1629

.1638

The Chair: I call this meeting to order.

Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Chairman, I have a point of order. May I ask our legal drafters how much work they have in front of them and how long it would take them to complete it, in terms of amendments.

Mr. Côté: If we were to complete all of the requests we have received so far from all parties, it would probably take at least another one and one-half weeks of constant drafting, with two lawyers here.

The Chair: I would ask you a further question. I understand that members of Parliament who aren't members of this committee have approached you to draft amendments and that you have been doing that because your general rule is that if any member of Parliament approaches you, you have to do their amendments, unless there is a resolution from this committee that you only deal with the members who are on this committee. Is that correct? Have you been doing them for other members who aren't members of the committee?

Mr. Côté: We have been doing some amendments, but they are not the bulk of the amendments. The bulk of the amendments are for members of this committee.

The Chair: All right. That's the answer to that question.

.1640

During the break I was talking to some members. I've been concerned with the points raised earlier today, and I was stuck with rules, regulations and resolutions we had passed.

The notice called this meeting until 6 p.m. There seems to be a disposition that we proceed until 6 p.m., but that we not sit this evening in order to give the clerk, and others too, perhaps, a chance to put all the amendments together into an ordered package, properly numbered, and so on, and tomorrow at 9 a.m. continue with our scheduled meetings, since we haven't scheduled other meetings so far. We may take extra days.

So that's a proposal. Since it's a variation on what we've decided, that is not to sit this evening to give a chance for this to be done, it would require unanimous agreement. I have to ask if there's unanimous agreement to do that. I've talked to some members. There seems to be a lot of agreement, but I didn't get a chance to talk to everybody.

Mrs. Barnes: I'm concerned about the pace we're going. We're still making progress, so I would like to sit for at least a couple of hours tonight to get a little more work done. Otherwise, at this pace I see us being here for weeks. But it's not necessary to sit till 10 p.m.

The Chair: The point was if we didn't sit it was to give your staff a chance to put everything in order. Right now the Reform amendments aren't marked R-1, R-2, R-3. The others are, but they're not in order. We've been doing all right, but we could do much better if we.... That's my view, but there has to be unanimous agreement. If there's not unanimous agreement, we'll sit tonight.

Mr. Breitkreuz: Mr. Chairman, I think if we would give your staff a chance to work, we would speed things up. We're spinning our wheels. I'm concerned that if we don't give them some time to work, in the long run it's actually going to slow us down.

Mr. Bodnar (Saskatoon - Dundurn): For the first time I agree with Mr. Breitkreuz.

Mrs. Barnes: I don't have a problem, if everybody else wants to.

The Chair: Is there unanimous agreement that we suspend, not sit tonight, but continue with our sittings? We've scheduled tomorrow. We haven't scheduled anything beyond. You'd have to decide tomorrow what to do from that point on. We will discuss that near the end of tomorrow's day.

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: We'll go till 6 p.m. We won't sit this evening.

Mr. Clerk and all our staff, if you could get everything in order for us tomorrow morning, then we'll start at 9 a.m., in accordance with the notices. We'll proceed with tomorrow's meetings as scheduled. Some time in the afternoon we'll decide if there's a necessity for further meetings, which will probably be the case.

Mrs. Barnes: A point of information. Are there votes tonight?

The Chair: There's a vote at 6:30 p.m.

Mr. Wappel: Mr. Chairman, I have a point of order. A different point was raised by you with respect to the legislative counsel. I am concerned, as a matter of procedure, that legislative counsel seem to be constrained to work on amendments received in the order received. What I mean by that is it has been confirmed, and you yourself have said so, that the legislative counsel are currently working on amendments by members who are not members of this committee, amendments for report stage. Although not the bulk, there are some. As a result, members of this committee, who would have liked to have had some of the amendments ready for these meetings have been unable to get them. I find this of some concern.

I wonder if it's possible to agree, by a motion of the committee, that the legislative counsel, during clause-by-clause and leading up to it, give priority to members of this committee for their amendments at committee stage and put all work on this bill for members who are not members of this committee on the back burner, for lack of a better phrase, until such time as the committee members who are working on this get the amendments.

.1645

What I'm seeing - and this applies not just to this bill but it could be other bills in the future - is here we are listening to evidence until 9:30 p.m. or 10 p.m. We don't have the time to draft the amendments. With all due respect to others who have interest in the bill, they have the time because they're not here listening to the evidence, and they, in effect, monopolize the time of the legislative counsel, not through their own fault but because of this imposed rule, to our detriment. Then we run into problems like this.

I'm wondering if there would be a disposition whereby we could instruct our legislative counsel to set aside those motions, made or requested of them by non-members, until the members' motions are dealt with.

The Chair: Though it would be in order for us to adopt such a resolution, it would have to be unanimous if it was to be done today because otherwise you'd need a 48-hour notice.

You've made a proposal. If I understand the proposal, it's that the drafters deal with the members of this committee from all parties.

I would even go further to give preference to the opposition parties, because it seems that on our amendments we've had help from the government. I would even amend it to that effect. If there's unanimous agreement to do that, that they set aside for the moment the ones from other.... Is there agreement to that proposal?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: That's a resolution of the committee and we hope it doesn't.... You can blame it on the committee.

Ms McMurray: Mr. Chairman, I'm just a little concerned here. While I appreciate where Mr. Wappel is coming from, this puts us in a rather unenviable position. I'm not altogether certain - and you might want to check this before you adopt the motion -

The Chair: We did adopt it.

Ms McMurray: Well, you might want to reconsider then. I'm not altogether certain that a committee can instruct members who are essentially employed by the Speaker for every member of the House.

I just raise it because I know it's going to be raised by my superior when I go back.

The Chair: Okay, then I'll go to the Speaker.

Ms McMurray: Or whatever, because I don't know whatever has to be done.

The Chair: I'll go to whomever, because I think it's otherwise impossible. I think Mr. Wappel made some good points.

In the situation we're in - it's too bad we didn't think of it sooner because we would have passed a resolution sooner - obviously it's this committee that's been dealing with C-68; it's this committee that's been wrestling with amendments. They are the ones who have to put the amendments at the committee stage. The others can put them later on at the report stage. The only way they could do it now is with the agreement. They'd have to give their amendments to somebody on the committee.

So this is something that we did, not that you did. I'll go and see the Speaker and see what he says.

Ms Phinney: I was wondering, Mr. Chairman, if you could ask Mr. Bartlett if he'd be willing to help with some of the amendments that are still to be written. He has a lot of experience. He's very good at it and he may be willing to help.

The Chair: I don't know the definition of his responsibilities, but if he wants to wait and discuss that with me later, he can. He can answer if he wishes to.

Mr. William Bartlett (Committee Researcher): I'm quite willing to help. However, I did suggest last week that I might be able to help with amendments and I was advised that if I had anything to do with them, the legislative counsel's office couldn't. If I can indeed work in cooperation with them then I would be happy to do that.

The Chair: I'm going to look into that too. I don't know the reasons for that. That's union work. Anyway we'll see about that.

We will continue with our work. We have an hour and ten minutes.

On clause 5 - Court orders

Mr. Ramsay: Did we not stand this?

The Chair: No. We stood clause 5. We're at clause 6 now, which deals with prohibition orders. You have an amendment.

Mr. Ramsay: We move that clause 6 be amended by striking out line 6 on page 6 and substituting the following:

prohibited weapon, restricted

The reason for this is we're deleting any reference to crossbows.

.1650

There has not been a statistical justification for the banning of these crossbows. If we're going to ban crossbows, why not longbows, including those big power-longbows?

So I don't think the rationale for banning crossbows has been presented either within the legislation or before the committee through the witnesses. So that's the rationale behind this amendment.

The Chair: Now that you've explained it, because we couldn't see that in it as drafted, and since Ms Phinney has asked if we stand the clauses on crossbows and that was agreed to, we'll stand this one too. We'll take them all together at one point.

Mr. Ramsay: That's why I wrote ``stand'' over my amendment.

The Chair: I see. It's not written on the one I have here.

Mr. Ramsay: I wrote it after Ms Phinney made her request.

The Chair: If that's the case, there are no other amendments to clause 6. Is that correct?

So we'll stand clause 6, because it has a little bit to do with crossbows, as well as the amendment of the Reform Party.

Amendment allowed to stand [See Minutes of Proceedings]

Clause 6 allowed to stand

On clause 7 - Successful completion of safety courses

The Chair: We have seven amendments on safety courses. We start with BQ-5.

[Translation]

We will start with amendment BQ-5 with Mr. Langlois or Mr. de Savoye.

Are you ready to explain it?

Mr. Langlois: The idea is to continue to recognize a course that has been approved by the Attorney General of a province, without reference to any particular dates. Someone who has the abilities required before January 1st 1995, or at any other time, would be deemed to still have those abilities and skills.

[English]

The Chair: Are there any further comments or questions?

Mr. MacLellan, you've heard the explanation. It seems a bit similar to some of the other ones.

Mr. MacLellan: Yes. It just opens up, Mr. Chairman, all the courses ever given as courses that would be permissible. I think what we recommend is that there be certain courses that would be grandfathered, but this seems to grandfather everything. I think it's a little excessive, frankly.

The Chair: Is there any other discussion?

[Translation]

Mr. de Savoye: With all due respect, this is not a question of granfathering everyting, but only what has been approved by the Attorney General of a province, which is after all a responsible person. We could imagine that, if a province has adopted particular measures, it has done so in a responsible manner, and we would recognize the competence of the provincial Attorney General if we were to give that scope to this article. It would probably simplify a number of implementation problems that could come up eventually.

[English]

Mr. MacLellan: It puts tremendous pressure on the Attorney General to approve any course that's ever been given. I don't think that's doing any favour to the Attorneys General. As well, it takes away the likelihood that we're going to get uniform safety courses across the country, and I think that's what we really want.

We don't say that the safety courses have to be the same in every province, but we would like to have some uniformity. If we agree to this, we're not going to obtain uniformity.

.1655

Mr. Breitkreuz: I had a concern as well, and the Bloc has basically addressed it. Some of the witnesses that came before the committee told us that some of the provincial courses were superior to this particular course. They had a lot of problems with the course that was put forward here. I think this allows them to implement the course that would be more suitable to the province in which it was given.

I do not think it opens it up, as Mr. MacLellan has said. It still has to be approved by the attorney general for the province. I think we have to allow the provinces some flexibility here in the administration of this thing, because some of their courses are superior to the Canadian course.

[Translation]

Mr. de Savoye: The problem with is proposed in the Bill is that everything prior to January 1st 1993 won't be recognized and that people will automatically have to take a new course. That is where we are adding a difficulty and creating lineups.

We should not assume that everything that has been done in the past was wrong. Most of the things that have been done have been well done. This recognizes that the provinces are the ones who know best what has been done on their turf.

When we try to apply the same policies, legislation and regulations across the country, we generally make mistakes in the process. There are situations where exceptions will be required. If we take the bill as it is now written, there are things that will clash; there will be implementation programs that will be difficult to solve, whereas, if we leave that to the provincial level, the implementation will be simpler. This is not a question of promoting cheap courses, but simply to make sure that the law will be implemented efficiently. That is the goal we are all aiming at. Thank you.

[English]

Mr. Mosley: A couple of observations, Mr. Chairman. First, the new paragraph 7.(1)(c.1) is extremely vague. There is no clarity as to the meaning of ``approved by the government''. It's not at all clear to me what that means. Does that mean the lieutenant governor in council of the province or territory or some government department that might want to approve a course another department disapproves of...? That is just a side issue. There is a problem with that paragraph.

The main concern we would have with paragraph 7.(1)(c) relates to the experience that followed the enactment of Bill C-17. The provincial attorneys general attempted to maintain a solidarity in support of the Canadian Firearms Safety Course, but they were faced with extraordinary and unrelenting lobbying to in effect grandfather everyone who had previously taken a hunter's safety course, however good that may have been, at some point in the past.

The difficulty if this goes through is there would be an immediate resumption of that lobbying campaign against every attorney general in the country in order to accept a hunter's safety course that may have been delivered in the 1950s with no practical test, no actual handling of the firearms and no examination whatsoever about what are the laws of this land, which are now features of the Canadian Firearms Safety Course.

With respect, it is just opening up a can of worms for the provincial administration of the safety training program in this country.

Mr. Bodnar: Dealing with this particular proposed amendment of the Bloc, most of the evidence that was heard before the committee for the last month deals with criminal offences committed and suicides.

The question of accidental deaths was never a major factor and never is a major factor, even though some of them occur.

.1700

With the department, I'm wondering why not allow opening up this can of worms for the provincial attorneys general and letting them determine what courses were appropriate in their province as indicated in paragraph 7.(1)(c) so that they can determine whether their courses were appropriate.

I realize what you're saying, that there will be lobbying of these attorneys general, but should we not have some faith in the attorneys general of the provinces that they can determine what was an appropriate course in their province in the time prior to the legislation?

Mr. Mosley: Mr. Chairman, the result would be a patchwork of course requirements across the country that would vary from province to province without any uniformity, as is now achieved through the national course. The advantage of the national course is that if someone moves from the province of Saskatchewan to another province, the CFO of that province knows that the individual who has moved from the other province and has taken the Canadian safety course will meet all of the requirements they would want them to meet in applying for a licence within that other province. That difficulty would no longer be the case if there was a different requirement in every single individual province.

The Chair: I have a question on this. I have been told - and I think you just referred to it - that in previous times there were courses where the individual who took the course never touched or fired a firearm but was simply instructed with pictures and books and then given a paper test. There was no actual test with firearms. Is that correct?

Mr. Mosley: That's one of our concerns about some of the old hunter safety courses, that there was no practical component to it. There was no handling of actual firearms. So they never had an opportunity to hold one in front of an instructor and be shown the correct manner of holding. In some cases, they just went through a paper exercise and then wrote a test.

[Translation]

Ms Venne: Unfortunately, I've arrived right in the middle of the discussion. We are currently discussing the clause that would ensure that the courses we have already taken would be recognized as well as the hunter's certificate. That's what Quebec did when it was decided that people had to take a course in order to get a Firearm Acquisition Certificate. At that time, it was decided that our courses would be recognized as valid. Once again, Quebec hunters are asking not to be forced to go back and take courses that all of them have already taken. That's why these amendments are being brought forward.

The amendment specifies, ``a firearms safety course approved by the government of the province in which the course was given.'' If you are telling us that that isn't specific enough for your, then we could just change ``the government of the province'' to ``attorney general of the province''. That would be just fine with us. We just want to make sure that there won't be any hassles for people who have already taken their course, which was completely valid, and just as good as the courses that are currently being given.

[English]

The Chair: Is there any further discussion? I will put the question. We're voting on -

[Translation]

Ms Venne: Mr. Chairman, perhaps we should make the change to subsection c.1 immediately, so that the government will look more favourably upon this amendment. Instead of saying ``approved by the government of the province'', we could say ``approved by the attorney general of the province''. Rather than specifying ``government'', we would specify ``attorney general'' in order to be more precise.

[English]

The Chair: Madam Venne is changing her proposed amendment BQ-5 so that it will read:

(c.1) successfully completes a firearms safety course approved by the attorney general of the province in which the course was given; or

[Translation]

And in French, procureur général.

[English]

Mr. Mosley: Mr. Chairman, that is simply then duplicating what would be in paragraph 7.(1)(c). I don't think it adds anything to the content of proposed paragraph 7.(1)(c).

I don't think it adds anything to the content of proposed paragraph 7.(1)(c).

.1705

[Translation]

Ms Venne: Mr. Chairman, we're not talking about the same kind of course in paragraph (c) and paragraph (c.1). One has to do with the general course, which indeed can be the course for hunters that I was telling you about, while the other paragraph has to do with a safety course. So we're not talking about the same kind of course here.

I think that the government has an amendment to make in order to clarify things. We are all working towards the same goal, which is to clarify this clause. That's why I want to move an amendment - if the government is willing to accept it - to make the clause very clear, because the government of Quebec has turned to us, saying that the clause is not clear enough, that it leads to confusion. That's what our goal is.

Mr. Yvan Roy (senior general counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice): My name is Yvan Roy, and I'm from the Department of Justice. Could you clarify whether the proposed paragraph (c.1) has to do with the approval of new safety courses, either by the attorney general of the province or by the federal government, or does it deal with courses that have already been held?

Ms Venne: In my view, clause 7 only deals with courses that have been given.

[English]

The Chair: I thought clause 7 applied to courses already given, to grandfather courses.

Is there any further discussion on this?

Amendment BQ-5, put forward by the Bloc Québécois -

[Translation]

Ms Venne: Just a moment, Mr. Chairman. Perhaps the legislative counsel could do a better job of explaining the difference between paragraph (c) and paragraph (c.1) than I did.

[English]

The Chair: There has been a request for the legislative counsel.

[Translation]

Mr. Côté: There is a small difference between paragraph (c) and paragraph (c.1). Paragraph (c) refers to a course approved by the attorney general of the province, and reference is made to section 106 of the former act.

In contrast, paragraph (c.1) deals with courses that may have been given or approved by the government of a province, without any reference to any section of the Criminal Code. So it could be a hunting course or a firearm handling course that may have been given in 1970 or 1955 - I don't know whether there were any back then - but paragraph (c) clearly refers to a course that is given for the purposes of the Criminal Code, for the purposes of section 106 of the former Act. Consequently, paragraphs (c) and (c.1) are different.

[English]

Mr. MacLellan: Mr. Chairman, regardless of the amendment Madam Venne is prepared to make, it is still a problem. If we adopt this, we can just forget about uniformity of training courses in Canada.

Mrs. Barnes: Mr. Bodnar and I were having a little discussion about an amendment that might clarify this. I would just like to get your opinion.

What if we took their amendment and added not only the attorney general of the province but also the Attorney General of Canada? Then you have the concern of uniformity across the land substantially dealt with, because we'd have an input to it at the federal level. It might save some people from going through an unnecessary exercise.

Mr. MacLellan: Sure.

Mrs. Barnes: Madam Venne, would you accept the friendly amendment here?

[Translation]

Ms Venne: So you're suggesting that we change «attorney general of the province» to «attorney general of Canada»?

Mrs. Barnes: No, both.

Ms Venne: Both. Well, then, the problem is that some courses may have been given in a particular province in the past, but they may not necessarily have been approved by the attorney general of Canada. This is why I have a problem here. So that change does not solve the problem for courses that were given in the past.

[English]

Mrs. Barnes: That's not the point, though.

.1710

The Chair: Maybe you can think about that for a second, Mrs. Barnes.

Next we have Mr. Breitkreuz.

Mr. Breitkreuz: That's an excellent suggestion. However, what happens if there's a dispute between those two?

The Chair: If it's not approved?

Mr. Breitkreuz: In other words, if the Canadian people don't agree, that's the end of the matter. It overrules it. It doesn't seem as though it solved the problem, then. Has it solved the problem if they don't agree?

Mr. Wappel: Mr. Chairman, I'm having a little bit of difficulty understanding the nuances of the dates. As I understand it, the current paragraph 7.(1)(c) contains a number of dates. They must be there for a reason. The amendment to paragraph 7.(1)(c) contains no dates. That must also be for a reason.

I heard Mr. Mosley talk about courses taken in the 1950s. Could I ask the movers of the motion to explain why they do not want any dates listed? Based on that answer, I will then ask the government why it does want dates. Maybe I could then understand the purpose of the amendment.

[Translation]

Ms Venne: The Bloc Québécois does not want any specific date mentioned because we have had hunter certificates in Quebec for many years. I'm trying to remember the date when the courses started for the hunter certificates, and I must admit that I don't know it off by heart. It's been said that it was in the 1950s, but that might be a bit of an exaggeration.

If we have to add a specific date to get our amendment passed, we could specify 1970, because that's when most hunters in Quebec took their course. But I don't think that's where the government's problem lies.

But why are we talking about 1955 and about courses that should be uniform throughout Canada? All the courses we had in the past certainly weren't the same everywhere. We won't be able to come to an agreement.

[English]

Mr. Mosley: The expectation following the enactment and implementation of Bill C-17 was that the provincial attorneys general, exercising the authority under section 106 of the act, would approve the Canadian Firearms Safety Course. The Attorney General of Quebec chose to approve not only that course but also the hunter certification course that had been in existence in the province of Quebec for a number of years.

As a result, in the province of Quebec there was a number of people who, by virtue of that decision, became eligible for firearms acquisition certificates. The dates are placed within paragraph 7.(1)(c) not to take away from those people who had the benefit of that decision the rights thereby acquired but to close the door to having certifications or approvals of hunter safety courses of a similar nature unless they had been approved during that period of time.

Mr. Wappel: Could I ask a supplementary based on the answers? In order to make my comment, I needed the clarification.

The Chair: Okay. Be brief.

Mr. Wappel: Would passing paragraph 7.(1)(c) in its current form affect those people who had been given permission by the Attorney General of Quebec under their hunter safety course?

Mr. Mosley: Do you mean in the current form in the bill?

Mr. Wappel: Yes.

Mr. Mosley: It would mean they would continue to be eligible to rely upon the approval of that course during that period of time, by the Attorney General of Quebec, as one of the criteria by which they would be eligible for a licence.

.1715

Mr. Wappel: But what I'm getting at is, would the passage of this section, as written, take away any rights from anybody who currently has something in the province of Quebec?

Mr. Mosley: No.

Mr. Wappel: All right.

Mr. Bodnar: I' like just a short clarification, perhaps, if you can help me with this.

You have the time constraints in the legislation. I'm concerned about pre-1993, where in provinces - and I believe Saskatchewan was one of them - the courses were in fact considered to be superior to what was dealt with after 1993. Is there any way of getting retroactive approval from the Attorney General of Canada for those courses so that those people don't have to take a watered-down version now, inferior to what they took before?.

That is one of the reasons for the suggestion, so that we can have perhaps a joint provincial attorney general and federal Attorney General approval of some course to in effect grandfather people who have taken superior courses or equivalent courses.

Mr. Mosley: There were no other approvals, at least not in Saskatchewan, to my knowledge. I believe there was in Manitoba during that period of time. So I believe it was just Quebec and Manitoba that in fact did approve such courses.

The Attorney General of Saskatchewan did not choose to approve the hunter safety courses for the purposes of section 106 during that window of opportunity. The effect of the motion before the committee would be to reopen that entirely and to give them the authority to approve any course that had previously been taken.

I might add that there's considerable dispute over the issue - and I don't wish to be seen as accepting the premise of the question - that the particular hunter safety course in question was superior to that of the Canadian Firearms Safety Course. That course was developed with the input of people from all over the country. It was broader in scope and included what most hunter safety courses don't include, a component on what the laws of the land are with regard to firearms.

[Translation]

Mr. de Savoye: We have specified at the outset that the object of the amendment was to allow all the provinces to implement the law on their territory, as far as courses are concerned. Ms Venne has just focused on the Quebec concerns and the witness has indicated that the clause, at it stands, would deal with these concerns. But there are other sources who have presented another interpretation in the last few weeks.

Therefore, to save us a discussion on something that might not require a debate, would you agree to allow that clause to stand until tomorrow so that we could check with the Quebec sources to know what their interpretation is? If there is no difference, there will be no problem for the Quebec side - and the other provinces can speak for themselves - , but otherwise, we will know why and the whole committee will have a better idea of the situation. What do you think about that?

[English]

The Chair: Of course, it's in the hands of the committee to do that, but I understand the government also has an amendment that attempts to move in the same direction. Maybe you would like to at least put it on the table before, so that overnight, if you decide to stand, you could look at both and see.

That's the next one. It's G-5. Could we suspend the discussion on this one for the moment and ask whoever is going...?

Amendment allowed to stand [See Minutes of Proceedings]

The Chair: Mrs. Barnes will move G-5.

Mrs. Barnes: I move to amend clause 7 of Bill C-68 by striking out lines 27 to 40 on page 6 and substituting the following:

[See Minutes of Proceedings]

Mrs. Barnes: You'll note that a couple of the words are underlined.

The whole intent of this is actually to address the situation in northern Manitoba and Quebec and to make sure that grandfathering of the safety courses is in effect but does have the dates.

.1720

It's very similar to the existing clause. We've just added a couple of words, ``that'' and ``had'', which clarifies that those that were grandfathered in when the provincial AGs had the opportunity after Bill C-17 will not...the status quo of that grandfathering will stay. I think in good part it satisfies the concern that has been raised by members from the Bloc.

If there's anything further the government officials wish to add, please go ahead.

Mr. MacLellan: As Mrs. Barnes has stated it, we feel our amendment does what we think needs to be done and safeguards the courses that have been approved.

With respect to further courses, if it wanted to include the approval of the attorney general of the province and the Attorney General of Canada, as was suggested by Mrs. Barnes and Mr. Bodnar, we see no objection to that, but we have to have something that outlines a criteria for courses in this country in the future. We want to get a standard. It doesn't have to be the same in every province but it has to be at a certain level across the country.

We're very much afraid that in order to try to deal with the concerns and the opinions of the various provinces, the quality of the course is going to suffer. With all due respect, we don't want to do that to the provinces.

Mr. Ramsay: I'm interested in what Mr. MacLellan is saying about uniformity for courses. When we dealt with Bill C-41 on alternative measures, we felt there was a necessity for a uniformity across the country, but the government argued exactly the opposite. To me, this seems to be leaning toward the encroachment, by the federal government, into the area of provincial authority. It seems rather more designed to control or to take on, by the federal government, the authority where it probably should be left with the provinces.

Mr. Chairman, we have the registration systems of vehicles, the issuance of drivers licences. They're all controlled by the provinces. Although they're not uniform across the country, they do meet a standard.

I have concerns here that what this amounts to is not a concern so much of uniformity, because the government has not pushed for uniformity in other areas, including Bill C-41, but more it's a move towards an encroachment upon the provincial jurisdiction, through this act, by the federal government.

Mr. MacLellan: Mr. Chairman, the indication seems to be that this is not an area where the province wants the authority. Frankly, I think it's a headache for them. If we can indicate that we want a certain standard, then that gives them the wherewithal to say, look, we can't accommodate what you want because the federal government wants a specific standard in these courses.

We're quite prepared to be the heavy in that regard because we feel very strongly that the course has to be at a certain level. We're not getting the feedback that the provinces are anxious to have the authority in this area.

The Chair: I hesitate debating this further, because we may debate it tomorrow. Mr. de Savoye asked that their amendment be stood overnight so they could check something with respect to their amendment.

.1725

I said before we would consider that request. We would put the government amendment on the table so that people could consider them, and tomorrow morning we would resume the discussion on this.

At this point does the committee agree to stand BQ-5 and G-5, which deal with safety courses, the dates and their approval, for the moment?

Mr. MacLellan: I don't mind standing it, but I would like it if we could get a consensus before we start a clause as to whether or not we're going to follow it through, not decide we're going to stand it after we get in the middle of it. We've passed one clause so far. While I've no objection to standing clauses, I don't want to do half clauses. What I'd like to do is that if we start a clause, finish it.

I'm prepared to go along on this, but I hope we would do that.

The Chair: I'm in the hands of the committee.

Mr. de Savoye: We said exactly the same thing at 2 p.m.

The Chair: Have you agreed in this case? Will G-5 stand?

Amendment allowed to stand

The Chair: Will BQ-5 stand?

Amendment allowed to stand [See Minutes of Proceedings]

The Chair: We now have BQ-3 -

Ms Meredith: Mr. Chairman, before we go on to page 8, can I just get a clarification on page 7. At the bottom of page 7, lines 37 and 39, where you've used the term ``prescribed'' again - and I assume that means there's going to be regulations - are those regulations in place? Can you give us an idea of what circumstances you're talking about where these people would be exempt, what criteria we bring here that might be exempt?

It's dealing with subclause 7.(4), under ``Exceptions''.

Mr. Mosley: No, these regulations are not in place; clause 7 is not enacted yet. But they will be regulations that will be submitted for parliamentary scrutiny once the legislation is in place.

Ms Meredith: But you must have some idea of what you're thinking of as far as exemptions or you wouldn't have felt it necessary to include this.

What is the government anticipating would be exemptions? Who are you anticipating leaving out of this requirement for safety courses?

Mr. Mosley: Paragraph 7.(4)(b) refer to individuals

less than eighteen years old and requires a firearm to hunt or trap

Ms Meredith: But paragraph 7.(4)(a) refers to those people who would be exempt by regulation. I would like to know who you are anticipating including in that. Why do you feel the need to have it in here?

Ms Irit Weiser (Senior Counsel, Criminal Law Policy, Justice Department): Currently there are regulations that provide for alternate certification. They are aimed at someone, who, for example, may be illiterate but has received extensive training on a firearm, knows the basic principles and knows the proper operation. This subclause would allow such a person to obtain a licence, relying on alternate certification.

.1730

Mr. Mosley: I apologize to the hon. member. I'd forgotten that we have already, in section 106 of the Criminal Code, the existing act, a provision that is virtually identical to that. Subparagraph 106.(12)(c)(ii) of the Criminal Code reads:

has been certified by a firearms officer in circumstances prescribed by regulation as meeting the criteria of competence in the safe handling and use of firearms and the laws relating to firearms prescribed by regulation

and then the regulations Ms Weiser referred to supplement that provision.

Ms Meredith: Why did you feel it necessary to change the wording, then, if it's already covered under the act?

Mr. Mosley: All of these provisions are being transferred into the firearms act. It's just carrying over that provision, which is now in section 106 of the Criminal Code, replicating it in substance in the new firearms act.

Ms Meredith: I guess my concern here is that you're telling me it's already in the Criminal Code under paragraph 106.(12)(c), but the wording of this one is different. I would like to ask why you didn't just carry it over in this legislation as it is worded in paragraph 106.(12)(c). Why do you feel the need to change it and start using ``prescribed'' - in the prescribed circumstances and the prescribed criteria - if it's already covered under that section?

If you're already covering illiteracy, if it's already in the existing legislation, why didn't you use that existing wording? Why are you changing the wording to expand it?

Mr. Mosley: The language is virtually identical. There are some minor changes, but the key elements of this are ``criteria''.

The existing provision speaks of competence in the safe handling and use of firearms and the laws relating to firearms prescribed by regulation.

Paragraph 7.(4)(a) of the bill speaks of:

meeting the prescribed criteria relating to the safe handling and use of firearms and the laws relating to firearms;

I don't think there's any difference in substance. It's a slightly different drafting style than the existing provision.

Mr. Breitkreuz: On that point, I don't understand what they mean by ``prescribed criteria''. Where is this prescribed criteria, and what is this?

The Chair: That was dealt with at the beginning of the afternoon.

Ms Meredith: They are regulations, and we don't have those.

Mr. Breitkreuz: You don't have those regulations yet. It's pretty difficult to deal with this, then, if we don't know what we're dealing with.

The Chair: That's why we agree or disagree to clauses that provide for regulations. We will see the regulations, as Mr. MacLellan said, before the proclamation of the law.

Mr. Breitkreuz: How can you...?

Mr. Wappel: Mr. Chairman, this is an existing provision, and Ms Weiser has already said there are already regulations under the existing provision. In particular, they deal with illiteracy.

So this is not some mystery. This is something that is already being used and on which there already are prescribed regulations.

Ms Meredith: It's the very same as other regulations that are not in place now that will refer to this.

Mr. MacLellan: They won't be substantially that different.

Mr. Wappel: That'll happen continuously.

The Chair: We will now go to amendment BQ-3.

[Translation]

Ms Venne: Where are we now? Clause 7, page 8. Mr. Chairman, this simply completes BQ-5. Therefore, I think this should be allowed to stand in the same way as BQ-5, because it refers to the date mentioned in clause 7. We are dissecting paragraphs c) and d).

The Chair: So, if I understood you correctly, you are asking that BQ-3 be allowed to stand with BQ-5.

Ms Venne: Exactly. For the same reason.

The Chair: You then have BQ-4. Is it also the same thing? Cohabited with the?

Ms Venne: No.

The Chair: It is something else.

Ms Venne: It is something else. It goes together, of course.

The Chair: Pardon me?

Ms Venne: The two motions I'm talking about go together.

The Chair: BQ-3 and BQ-4?

Ms Venne: BQ-5, not BQ-4.

[English]

The Chair: Amendment BQ-3 is on the same subject matter as amendment BQ-5, which we've already stood.

Since they go in a package, Ms Venne is requesting that we stand that one as well.

.1735

Amendment allowed to stand [See Minutes of Proceedings]

The Chair: We go to amendment G-6.

Mr. Gallaway: G-6 also refers to crossbows, so I would....

The Chair: There's going to be a rush tomorrow morning.

Amendment allowed to stand [See Minutes of Proceedings]

The Chair: We go to amendment G-7.

Mr. Bodnar: Mr. Chairman, with respect to G-7, there is no reference to crossbows.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh.

Mr. Bodnar: I move to amend clause 7 of Bill C-68

(a) by striking out lines 7 and 8 on page 8 and substituting the following:

dividual in respect of whom an order is made

and (b) by striking out lines 13 to 18 on page 8 and substituting the following:

of that subsection.

The purpose of this proposed amendment is to deal with the question of cohabitants and associates where there has been a prohibition and not requiring them to retake the safety course. This is a matter I had raised some time ago with the Justice officials in dealing with people who cohabited with people who have been prohibited.

I think that explains it, unless the government officials have some other clarifications.

Mr. MacLellan: No, that's fine. That explains it.

[Translation]

Ms Venne: I just wanted to say that we also had an amendment on that clause, but it didn't go as far. We left the «cohabited». Since you're going further, we can only approve.

[English]

The Chair: Is there any further discussion on amendment G-7?

Amendment agreed to

The Chair: Now we deal with BQ-4.

[Translation]

Ms Venne.

Ms Venne: That was the one, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: It was on the same topic.

Ms Venne: Precisely. That's it.

[English]

The Chair: So that's withdrawn.

[Translation]

Ms Venne: It is withdrawn.

[English]

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: Okay, but we're standing clause 7, because while we've passed some amendments, there are others dealing with crossbows and so on. So we stand clause 7 as a whole.

Mr. Ramsay: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, we have an amendment being drafted that will affect subclause 7.(4).

The Chair: Is it overtaken by the one we've just carried?

Mr. Ramsay: No.

The Chair: Okay. We're standing clause 7 anyway. If it doesn't touch in the same area as G-7, which was just agreed to, then we've stood the clause, because it deals with other matters that cannot be dealt with now. We said we would deal with it tomorrow morning, but we may not deal with all of it tomorrow morning. So it is stood anyway, Mr. Ramsay.

Mr. Ramsay: All right. Thank you.

Clause 7 allowed to stand

.1740

On clause 8 - Minors

The Chair: We have a Reform Party amendment on clause 8, which we are calling R-5 for the moment. There are two reform amendments, R-5 and R-6, to clause 8. It deals with special persons, minors and others.

Mr. Ramsay: I move to amend clause 8 of Bill C-68 by striking out lines 23 to 27 on page 8. We submit that there should always be parental consent for persons under 18 to obtain a firearm, and there should be no exception to that.

Mr. MacLellan: Mr. Chairman, I guess we disagree. When it comes to hunting and trapping for sustenance, I think subclause 8.(2) is very important. Frankly, I don't really see the objection to it.

Mr. Ramsay: I would like to respond to that, Mr. Chairman. To my understanding, this clause authorizes, for teenagers, the licensing and possession to have and use firearms. We feel there is nothing wrong with that, but parental consent should be involved. I don't think there's anything remarkable about that. I think parental consent should be involved.

The Chair: I'll go to the government and then I'll go to Mr. Wappel.

How do you respond to the question asked by Mr. Ramsay?

Mr. MacLellan: I honestly don't see, Mr. Chairman.... I know subclause 8.(5) says:

hold a licence only if a parent or person who has custody of the individual has consented in writing to the issuance of the licence.

I mean, it's an awful lot sometimes in remote areas to have the parent have a written consent for the youth to be able to hunt and trap for sustenance. I don't see where this has been abused or where it has resulted in problems in the north. I don't see where other parties have had their rights infringed as a result of this. I think to require this would be a terrible infringement on the traditional lives of people in remote areas.

I don't think we should impose this on them.

Mr. Wappel: Mr. Chairman, I'm not sure where my friends in the Reform Party are coming from on this. Subclause 8.(5) deals with the situation where there is parental or guardianship custody. If a person under the age of 18 is not in the custody of either a parent or guardian, then they're on their own.

If somebody who is 17 is married to someone who is 16, has a family and they're out on the trapline, as I understand it, that's what subclause 8.(2) is meant to deal with. If they're still at home, they're under the custody of their parents, and subclause 8.(5) deals with them.

So I don't think there's any infringement on parental rights under subclause 8.(2). Am I incorrect in my reading of either of those subclauses?

Mr. MacLellan: No, you're right. It's just not normal to require this in remote areas. Like Mr. Wappel, I don't understand why this is being requested. It's never been a problem and it just doesn't link in with what's necessary.

Ms Meredith: Mr. Chairman, I do have a problem, because any reference I hear to these types of issues...you talk aboriginal, you talk remote areas.

Having spent 15 years in the north, where you have native and non-native living side by side, where all persons hunt and use firearms to provide food for their families, I would want some assurance that in a community, whether it's remote in a hunting camp or in a fishing camp, in a community where you have young people, Mr. Wappel's scenario, 16 or 17 years old who are married and raising a family, whether they are aboriginal or non-aboriginal, the same policy would be enforced, that there's not going to be a special consideration based on race.

.1745

The Chair: Subclause 8.(2) now does not mention aboriginal. It just says ``minors''.

Mr. MacLellan: Mr. Chairman, if the 16- and 17-year-olds are married, I don't understand: why couldn't they hunt?

The Chair: Ms Meredith was concerned that this may apply only to aboriginals.

Mr. MacLellan: No, no. It's not aboriginals. It's just people in remote areas.

Ms Meredith: Remote areas, or where they use it for hunting and for sustenance, for food. In the community I lived in, with a 6,000 population, everybody provided food on their table by going out into the bush and hunting. It's not remote.

Mr. MacLellan: It certainly isn't downtown Toronto, either.

Ms Meredith: I think they would be offended if you called it remote.

The Chair: I think we should read the clause. It's very clear. It's written right in the bill on page 8. It doesn't say anything about remote area or aboriginal. It just says if he wants to hunt and trap as a way of life.

[Translation]

Mr. de Savoye: Mr. Chairman, thanks to Ms. Meredith's questions and the answers that were given to her, things are now clearer in my mind. If I understand correctly, our witness mentioned aboriginals and remote areas as an example. He might have chosen other examples in order to avoid any misunderstanding.

[English]

Ms Clancy (Halifax): The parliamentary secretary has admirably expressed my point. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The Chair: Is there further discussion on this amendment?

Amendment negatived

The Chair: Your next amendment, Mr. Ramsay, is also with respect to page 8.

Mr. Ramsay: I move to amend clause 8 by striking out lines 37 to 41 on page 8. The rationale for this is that those under 18 should be eligible to receive a gift or inheritance of a prohibited or restricted firearm if it is a valued family possession or if, in the case of handguns, they are target shooters.

Mr. MacLellan: I'm further confused, which may not be difficult, Mr. Chairman. To me this is totally contrary in spirit to what they were proposing in the last amendment. Now they're saying an individual who is less than 18 years is not eligible to hold a licence authorizing the individual to possess prohibitive firearms or restricted firearms or to acquire firearms or crossbows.

We feel on that side that while we want an 18-year-old to be able to hunt and trap where necessary, we don't want them to be able to use these firearms or crossbows. We don't see that as being necessary for trapping or sustenance.

The Chair: Is there further discussion?

Amendment negatived

The Chair: There's also LP-4, which deals with crossbows.

Amendment allowed to stand [See Minutes of Proceedings]

Mrs. Barnes: On a point of order, I just wanted to flag the clause we voted on. We may have to come back to that if we deal somewhat differently with crossbows later on.

The Chair: I understand that.

If later we decide to take crossbows out, we'll have to take it out of all the clauses.

Clause 8, though, will stand because of the crossbow implications. We've defeated two amendments.

Clause 8 allowed to stand

On clause 9 - Businesses

The Chair: Clause 9 deals with businesses relating to firearms. We have a number of amendments. LL-1 comes first.

.1750

Mr. Lee: Colleagues, this particular clause, as it shows, deals with licensing of businesses and employees. You will recall the evidence that we received from two firearms manufacturers who were here. I understand there are three manufacturers in Ontario, and one of those manufacturers maintains a business premise in the Montreal area, so there are at least four locations where there are manufacturers and employees.

I have to go back into the last Parliament, when Bill C-17 was passed. The issue of how the legislation would apply to employees of manufacturers came up. It was the view of the committee - and this is to the best of my recollection - that they should be exempted wherever there was a bona fide business. So the exemption power was passed on to the Attorney General or a delegate or a firearms officer for a province.

In this case, the way this bill is drafted, what the subclause amendment recognizes is that as with museums and other institutions, everyone who is in the premises and whoever looks at, sneezes at, or comes in contact with a firearm or a partially completed firearm or a part of a firearm would have to be licensed.

I'm operating on the premise that licensing of an employee is prima facie an impediment to doing business; it is a business cost and a regulatory burden imposed on the business. So this particular amendment states where an employee.... I'll simply read it:

provided that for the purpose of this section only, the term ``firearm'' does not include a partially manufactured firearm which is, in its unfinished state, not a barrelled weapon from which any shot, bullet or other projectile can be discharged, and that is capable of causing serious bodily injury or death to a person.

The definition describing a firearm, the last part, is taken directly from this legislation.

What this does is to permit an employee of a licensed employer not to be mandatorily licensed where that person simply handles firearm parts, assembles machine tools, carries or whatever, in the process of manufacture, provided that it's an unfinished firearm.

At the present time, a simple gun frame is a firearm for purposes of the act - and I stand corrected if I'm wrong on that - but a frame manufactured, which is incapable of firing anything, is a firearm. But for purposes of manufacturing, it's simply a part that is machined, stamped or whatever, and to require that employee to be licensed would be conceptually the same as asking the night cleaner in the museum to be licensed. From the point of view of public safety, I think it unnecessarily imposes a regulatory burden or cost on a manufacturer, and it doesn't have to be there.

Mr. MacLellan: I can understand Mr. Lee's concern. I know he knows the company much better than I.

Mr. Lee: There are three companies.

Mr. MacLellan: Okay. The problem is, it's something that comes under the jurisdiction of the Attorney General. We'd really be very hard-pressed to make any decisions in that area. I don't see where the Attorney General would have a problem in dealing with this, but I don't think it's for the federal Minister of Justice to make this change.

.1755

Mr. Wappel: The Attorney General of Canada is already requiring that every employee of a company that manufactures firearms must have a licence, so surely it is within the jurisdiction of the federal Attorney General that is going to require every employee to have a licence to provide for circumstances in which an employee need not have a licence. Therefore, I don't think there's any constitutional problem or any stepping on the toes of the provincial attorneys general, with respect to Mr. Lee's amendment.

As I understand Mr. Lee's amendment, he's simply saying, look, why make every employee who works in a firearms manufacturing plant get a licence if they never come in contact with a completely assembled firearm? If all they ever do is work on the barrel, or if all they ever do is work on the trigger, or if all they ever do is work on the handle, why should there be the administrative cost of, first, forcing that person to seek a licence, and second, presumably having the company pay for all of that? I think that's the intent of Mr. Lee's amendment. To me, that's pretty compelling from a business point of view, provided, of course, that the employee, I suppose, never comes into contact with a fully completed firearm, which I gather is the intent in the clause.

In the way he drafted the amendment, I'm presuming the mover anticipated that. So I'm having difficulty understanding why the government is hesitant with respect to this amendment.

The Chair: Before you answer, Mr. MacLellan, the last time you answered were you saying that the provincial attorney general can exempt people that Mr. Lee wants to -

Mr. MacLellan: I want to speak on it further, Mr. Chairman, but I want Mr. Mosley to speak on it first. I want to address Mr. Wappel. He makes a good point.

Mr. Mosley: I think Mr. Lee and Mr. Wappel are probably very familiar with the particular practical problems that arose in the province of Ontario. In effect, the province can now do what is the object of the amendment: they can now exempt the employees of such businesses from having to have FACs.

The problem that arose in the province of Ontario was in the case of one particular company. An employee managed to cart away bits and pieces, built his own restricted weapon and then proceeded to use it to commit a homicide. As a result of that, the solicitor general - as the case is in Ontario - has chosen not to exempt the employees. That's the practical difficulty.

I think what the province wants is at the very least to go through the screening of these individuals and to make sure they are persons who are suitable for having access to such inherently dangerous articles.

The Chair: Do they have to take a firearms course? The whole bunch of them would have to take the course and so on.

Mr. Mosley: Yes.

Mr. Lee: The point is that the people who would be exempted by reason of this definition, would not, by reason of the definition, have access to a dangerous firearm, because it wouldn't be a completed firearm.

Mr. Mosley: Well, they're in the factory. In a normal course of events, they may not be at the stage of the assembly of the firearm where they are finishing the firearm, but they would still probably have access to the components.

[Translation]

Mr. de Savoye: I can understand the arguments of my colleague, Mr. Lee, on that point. But I do have a few questions on the answers that were given.

First, in reading the Act the clause in question, I don't see anywhere that the Attorney General of a province can do anything other than what is written here. So I don't think that the Attorny General of a province has the powers that people here say he has, or else, I missed something.

.1800

The other thing is that something happened in Ontario where an employee was able, through his professional activities, to assemble a firearm from bits and pieces and therefore the Attorney general of Ontario has decided that from now on all employees will have to be licenced. But even if they are licenced, they can still do the same and be involved in criminal activities, as it happened in that case.

I must be missing something in this reasoning. By requiring that all employees be licenced we would cause a business to incur costs for training in skills that have nothing to do with the work being performed. And all the while without in any way preventing a dishonest employee from acting dishonestly.

I find Mr. Lee's arguments valid, but not so the witnesses' arguments. Am I missing something?

[English]

Mr. MacLellan: I don't think Mr. de Savoye is missing anything at all. The situation in front of us is that we have the power to say that these certain employees need the licences or not. However, clause 95 does give the province the right to exempt, so that power is there with the provinces.

What we're saying is, if, with that exemption, should we, in fact, exempt where we know there's that concern by the Province of Ontario about the incident that happened, or should we allow the Province of Ontario, in this case, to make the exemption? That's what it comes down to.

Certainly, if the members of the committee feel we should make that exemption, then frankly, I really don't have any major concern with that. If you feel that it's something, because of clause 95, the provinces can do, and that in the interests of allowing them to have the jurisdiction in this area that's something they should do, then I have no problem with that. It's a question of how this is best handled.

Ms Meredith: In clause 9 there are four references to prescribed relationship to a business. Could you please explain to me if you have any regulations in place that point out what you mean by prescribed relationship to a business? If not -

The Chair: Excuse me. For the moment we're dealing with Mr. Lee's amendment. I'll come back to you for other questions on this clause and we can deal with them.

Ms Meredith: I guess my concern is that this prescribed relationship takes into effect the people whom Mr. Lee is referring to. Is this in fact what he's referring to - employees, people who happen to walk through the door or people who clean floors? Are there regulations that specify, as Mr. Lee has pointed out, some manufacturers?

The Chair: If that's the question, that's relevant.

Are there regulations dealing with these types of employees now that would touch on Mr. Lee's amendment?

Mr. MacLellan: I'm not sure. I'd better ask Ms Weiser if she knows.

Ms Weiser: No, there are not regulations that would be governing the employees. The way the system is structured now, as has been indicated, is that employees of a firearms business must be licensed so that they have the safety training. Alternatively, they can be exempted by a provincial minister who will have the opportunity to ensure that any security requirements are met.

Mr. Ramsay: If the provincial attorney general has the power to exempt, then that certainly addresses my concern in this area.

But I would just like to add that it doesn't matter whether or not a person is licensed and has gone through the course. It's not going to stop them from doing what Mr. Mosley described had occurred.

.1805

Again, to me it raises the question of the whole justification of the licensing program and the registration program within this bill. If the individuals working in a firearms factory have passed all the tests, have their licences, and have gone through the course, that still doesn't stop them from doing exactly what Mr. Mosley described.

So what's the purpose of it, in the long run? What really is the purpose?

The Chair: You're addressing the purpose of many parts of the bill now, but that's fine.

Mr. Wappel: I have two points, Mr. Chair. The term ``in a prescribed relationship'' primarily deals with people who are operating the business. Subclause 9.(3) quite clearly says ``every employee'' of the business must obtain a licence. That is the concern.

Clause 95 has been bandied about. However, the employer who was here before us pointed out that each year he applies for an exemption, and each year he is turned down without an explanation as to why he is turned down. I will, I hope, be bringing an amendment to clause 95 to deal with that, if nothing else to at least allow the provincial court judge to review the decision.

In any event, if that is currently the situation, that it can be capriciously turned down...I say ``capriciously'', but let's put it this way: if it can be turned down without reasons, then it can be capricious. It can be for no reason. That is why I think Mr. Lee's amendment deals with a very specific situation, which I won't repeat except to agree with Mr. Ramsay that whether or not the employee is licensed, you can't deal with the issue of theft from an employer by way of a licensing requirement. That doesn't make any sense. That's like requiring a heavy gold miner to be licensed to operate a jackhammer because they may take gold out in their teeth. It just doesn't make any sense.

So I support Lee's amendment.

The Chair: Before I go to Mr. MacLellan, I have Mr. Lee and Mr. Langlois on my list. It is now nearly 6:10 p.m., and I was hoping we could complete at least LL-1 before we adjourn.

Mr. MacLellan: I just have one thing on Mr. Ramsay's and Mr. Wappel's statements on the licensing. It would require a review of that employee's mental health every five years. If there's a question of whether a person was in a proper mental state, then that should be determined every five years, whereas if they weren't licensed, that wouldn't happen.

Mr. Lee: In relation to the proffered exemption, I point out that the exemption in clause 95 is only for a year. There's some question about whether or not you could extend it. I'm not exactly sure one could extend it, the way it's worded.

In any event, I want to point out - and I'll try to keep very cool about this - that I've heard the explanations from Mr. Mosley about the exemption in the hands of the attorney general. But I want to tell my colleagues that, notwithstanding the bone fide exemption provisions that existed in this bill, the Attorney General of Ontario and his/her delegate refused - refused - continuously to provide an exemption for a particular business. As a result, the business considered whether or not they wanted to continue in business in Ontario.

With all due respect to my colleagues in the Montreal area, the business in my riding did open up a branch manufacturing operation in Montreal - our loss is your gain - because the attorney general of that province was prepared to provide some kind of an exemption. But I am suggesting there is no guarantee of good faith - and I use the term advisedly - on the part of an attorney general of a province. We, as members of Parliament, are incapable of linking to that level of government. We have no role; there's no nexus.

.1810

Believe me, I tried. If it were an administrator in the federal government, I could probably get him or her to return my phone call, but when it's an administrator, a public servant, in the provincial level of government, they don't want to hear from us.

So I don't trust the suggestion of an exemption. If the Department of Justice doesn't like to hear that, then they should have taken care of this a couple of years ago when the problem arose instead of just saying they were sorry, that's what the bill says.

My job now is to make sure the bill says what we want it to say and that I, as an MP, have an opportunity to see to its application.

[Translation]

The Chair: Mr. Langlois.

Mr. Langlois: Mr. Chairman, I simply would like to ask you, before I come to my question, if you could have the ear pieces checked before tomorrow morning because I cannot hear the floor; I will take them off completely so that I can hear the answers.

Mr. Lee has pratically convinced me to vote against his own amendment because, if I understood correctly, if this amendment is not passed, more businesses will come from his riding into Quebec. That is what I understood and I believe that is what the Chair understood as well. Am I wrong?

I must say that Mr. Lee has given us a clear and precise demonstration of his intent and I will support his amendment.

I was going to ask him what his response is to the objection that clause 95 already allows for exemptions, but he has already answered by saying that this was granted rarely or randomly from one province to the next of even within a province.

[English]

The Chair: Are you ready for the question?

Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]

The Chair: It's unanimous.

Members, it's now 6:15 p.m. This would probably be a good time to adjourn - unless the seeds of revolution rise up.

We adjourn until 9 a.m. tomorrow, at which time we're going to have a new paquet of amendments in good order and a new agenda.

The meeting is adjourned.