[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
Tuesday, May 30, 1995
.1533 
[English]
The Chair: I'd like to call the meeting to order.
We are continuing with our consideration of Bill C-68, an act respecting firearms and other weapons. We will continue with the clause-by-clause consideration of the bill.
This morning we completed consideration of Mr. Wappel's amendment, LW-3. That amendment was stood and the clause was stood as well.
We will now proceed to the Bloc Québécois amendment, BQ-6. It proposes a new clause 22.1.
[Translation]
Mrs. Venne.
Mrs. Venne (Saint-Hubert): Mr. Chairman, before speaking to that amendment, I have a point of order once again concerning the government amendments. This time I must say that I managed to get the government amendments up to G-73.
I realize that other members of the committee do not have them. I would like to know why the members of the committee do not have the other amendments; Reform Party members only have them up to G-38 whereas I personally managed to get the government amendments up to G-73. How come other members don't have them? Why didn't you distribute them? I would like to know what kind of game you're playing right now, why you are holding back those amendments when I have been able to get them.
[English]
The Chair: The clerk says he can explain that.
[Translation]
The Clerk of the Committee (Mr. Dupuis): I received the government's amendments on Monday morning and I had three photocopies made very quickly so that the Opposition critics would get a copy. Later, but much too late, I was told to hold them back.
Mrs. Venne: So the amendments have been ready since Monday, but you were asked to hold them back.
The Clerk: All the amendments up to clause 95, but I was asked to keep the others.
Mrs. Venne: How can the government explain the reason why they asked that the remainder of those amendments be held back?
[English]
Mr. Russell MacLellan (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and to the Attorney General of Canada): I have no idea. I'll find out.
The Chair: I thought you had already said it was because you decided to do some fine-tuning.
Mr. MacLellan: We wanted to do some fine-tuning, but I would have thought the fine-tuning would be -
Mr. Bodnar (Saskatoon - Dundurn): I only have up to G-38 as well, so it's not that it's being used against one party or another. We only have them to G-38. There must be an error.
That's all I have.
Mrs. Venne: I know that.
The Chair: That's what she said.
Mrs. Venne: Yes, that's exactly what I said.
The Chair: Mr. MacLellan, can you explain what happened?
Mr. MacLellan: The idea was to make some changes. There were some mistakes in the amendments. We wanted to correct these mistakes before we circulated them.
Of course, when the changes are made, the minister has to have a chance to review these amended amendments. It is my understanding that is taking place at the present time.
The problem, of course, is with the minister's schedule. Whether they've had an opportunity to meet with the minister yet or not I can't say, because I haven't been back to my office. I haven't been out of this building since we met.
But I will check on it. I will do my best to get these amendments to everyone.
[Translation]
Mrs. Venne: Does that mean that we should have had these amendments this afternoon but that we're not going to get them?
[English]
Mr. MacLellan: I thought we would have them this afternoon. I believed they would be ready this afternoon. Whether the problem is consulting with the minister -
I will find out for Mrs. Venne, Mr. Chairman.
The Chair: Mrs. Venne, maybe we could have a report on that before we adjourn this afternoon.
[Translation]
Mrs. Venne: Certainly.
.1540
[English]
Mr. Ramsay (Crowfoot): Could the government officials tell us how many amendments are forthcoming? Could they enlighten us that far?
The Chair: I understand these are amendments to clauses 95 and following. Can you tell how many there are?
Mr. Richard Mosley (Assistant Deputy Minister, Criminal and Social Policy, Department of Justice): We don't have a number, Mr. Chairman.
There was a package completed over Sunday night, and was delivered to the clerk, as he has indicated, first thing Monday morning. We then had some discussions. We went through the package again. There were some obvious mistakes that had to be corrected. There are other matters involving questions of policy that have to be discussed with the minister. We simply have not had an opportunity to do so since Sunday afternoon.
The changes that were made Sunday night we have not yet had a chance to discuss with the minister, but there's no mystery to it.
In terms of the number, there is a substantial package.
[Translation]
Mrs. Venne: Thirty-five.
[English]
The Chair: Could I suggest the following?
Is it possible that you could at least release some if not all of the ones in that package for which were no changes or policy considerations?
Mr. Mosley: I expect we could do exactly that, but we'd have to go through them one by one, and of course it's difficult to do that while we're here. But perhaps over the supper break, before the evening session, we could do that and come back with the ones where nothing remains to be done.
[Translation]
Mr. Langlois (Bellechasse): Mr. Chairman, that sounds like a promise of marriage just before a divorce.
This morning, we were told that we would be getting them this afternoon at the latest. This afternoon, we are told that we will be getting them early this evening and early this evening we will be told that we will be getting them tomorrow morning. We must set a deadline or something. I understand that Mrs. Venne inadvertently let the cat out of the bag and enabled us to get to the bottom of this matter. Who was instructed to hold back some amendments? Those amendments, which could have been reviewed, should have been distributed to everyone. There is no reason why one member of the committee should be given priviledged information in advance, unless you can think of one, Mr. Chairman. I would ask that those amendments which have been distributed to Mrs. Venne be distributed to all committee members so that we can all have the same information and see the government draft amendments that have been distributed to another member, so that we too can review them and see how the government has worked, how it did its homework to arrive at a final version. We do not have that benefit right now. I would submit to you, Mr. Chairman, that my privileges as a committee member have been violated and that you should order that this wrong be rectified.
[English]
The Chair: I should repeat that according to the rules, there is no requirement to submit amendments in advance. As a matter of fact, the only requirement is that when the clause is called, if you have an amendment to that clause, you can then present that amendment.
The distribution of amendments in advance is done as a courtesy. It has been done from time to time, but it's not a question of privilege or of rules. It's done simply to facilitate the work of the committee.
The same rule applies to the government as to the opposition. Any one of you here can present an amendment on the last day a clause is presented. Once we pass the clause, of course, you can't do it. You could then do it at the report stage in the House. The minister may have amendments he may only present at report stage; you may have amendments you may only present at report stage.
All of this is a proper courtesy because it facilitates the work of the committee. We encourage it, but sometimes it can't be done, and for many reasons.
I told Mrs. Venne we would try to get a report on this at the end of the afternoon. But it surely isn't a question of violation of privilege or of the rules, because the rules do not require any amendments to be presented in advance.
Mr. Langlois, in the House of Commons they do at report stage. That's why at report stage you get an advance listing of the amendments in the Order Paper, which is a good thing, but we don't have a similar rule for the committee.
.1545
I'm in sympathy with the thrust of your desire to see all of the amendments in advance. I always like to see them in advance. We'll encourage the minister and all political parties to do that. I understand there are still other amendments to come from different political parties and members.
So while we encourage that, we can't brand the failure to do it as a break in the rules or as a break in privilege, because it isn't. Let's hope that before the end of the afternoon we'll have a report on these amendments.
Mr. Ramsay: If the rules are going to be applied in the way you're saying they are -
The Chair: I'm bound by the rules.
Mr. Ramsay: Yes, and I have no argument with that, but I have some concern that we're going to receive a batch of amendments that we're going to have to interpret and understand as we take one after another off the pile. I suppose the only thing I can express is to ask for a continuation of the chair's indulgence in the time allotted to all members as we go through these amendments that are suddenly thrust before us.
At least some of us, including me, haven't gotten to the bottom of this list yet. I don't know what's coming and I have to adjust during that period of time when we're doing the amendments.
So I hope the chair will continue to grant us the time necessary to do that, bearing in mind that it certainly would expedite the whole process if we had the amendments at least 24 hours before we had to consider them.
The Chair: That's true, Mr. Ramsay, and it would be the same for your amendments, because we haven't gotten some of yours yet.
Mr. Ramsay: We've said this before; we're rushing this thing through. I would like everyone to have a look at my party's amendments and consider them so that when they vote on them it will be an informed vote and not something that's done on the fly, as is suggested here today.
The Chair: As far as I'm concerned as chair, there will be no voting on the fly. I intend to give adequate time for the members to explain their amendments and to ask questions, as I have done. In other words, I intend to allow lots of time for questioning.
Some of these amendments will be very simple; some will be complicated. The simple ones will be understood immediately. You'll know right away whether you're against it or you're for it, and it won't take a lot of discussion. Others will be very complicated and will require discussion.
We had quite a long discussion this morning on Mr. Wappel's proposals with respect to the length of a gun or the length of a barrel and how that affected prohibited weapons. We had lots of questions.
I intend to allow that time so we can fully understand what we're voting on. There will come a time when we do understand that there's an honest division of opinion in the committee on certain matters, and we'll vote and decide it.
Mr. Ramsay: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[Translation]
The Chairman: We now have amendment BQ-6 proposed by the Bloc Québécois.
Mrs. Venne: We have before us an amendment which you have had since May 16, as it was distributed on that date. According to that amendment, those who sell firearms would be required to provide a secure locking device, since such a device is required for storage. As you know, we presently have a regulation to that effect.
For those firearms which will be sold in the future, what the Bloc québécois is requesting - and here I am summarizing and not reading every paragraph of the clause, I am simply summarizing the clause by saying that we are requesting that it be mandatory that a locking device be sold with the firearm in order to comply with the regulation, since hunters and target shooters and many people we met told us that they weren't aware of that safety regulation, nor of the obligation they had to lock their firearms. I think that if such a device were sold with the firearm, that would be one less thing for them to look for, especially since trigger locks generally cost between 15 and 20$. That will not increase the sale price of a gun all that much.
.1550
For that reason, you will see at the end of subsection (4) and the following, that an offence has been committed. When you have an obligation, non-compliance with that obligation has to be an offence, otherwise that obligation would be useless. You must also have noticed that that offence does not constitute an offence for the purposes of the Criminal Records Act and that it would constitute a summary conviction offence.
That is our intention. We are now ready to answer your questions, if you have any.
[English]
The Chair: Merci, Madame.
Mr. MacLellan, have you any comments on this amendment?
Mr. MacLellan: Yes, Mr. Chairman.
I think certain parts of this amendment are helpful. I have a problem with new subclauses 22.1(4) to 22.1(7), but I think new subclauses 22.1(1) to 22.1(3) are helpful. The only thing is we'd have to restrict it to new firearms, because I think it would be very difficult to have it generally apply to all firearms.
What we could do is give it some consideration, if Madam Venne is agreeable, and come back with a suggestion we find acceptable, if that would be helpful. If she still wants to put her own amendment, she can, but we could put ours as well, if that would -
[Translation]
Mrs. Venne: Mr. MacLellan says that he wants to come back with a similar proposal. As I do not have any objection, we may stand my amendment.
[English]
Mr. MacLellan: All right.
Mr. Breitkreuz (Yorkton - Melville): There isn't a requirement at the present time to have a trigger lock on a gun, is there? There isn't. This is completely new. I think you're incorrect in saying there have to be trigger locks. There's no requirement at the present time to have a trigger lock on a gun.
[Translation]
Mrs. Venne: Certainly.
[English]
Mr. Breitkreuz: Not a trigger lock. Trigger locks can be very ineffective and practically useless unless you start requiring certain types of trigger locks. I don't really think this would adequately address the problem. Besides, it's not in the law at the present time, as you've suggested.
[Translation]
Mrs. Venne: I am sorry, but the regulation says that firearms must be safely stored. The locking device may be a trigger lock, and it may also be a cabinet. But you are wrong when you say that what I'm saying is totally false.
Mr. Langlois: I would like an answer from our legal counsels. For greater certainty, not-withstanding subsection (4), the ``provisions of the Criminal Code relating to summary conviction offences apply to an offence referred to in subsection (1)''. If I understand correctly, if we're only using the procedure provided for in the Criminal Code, and when the verdict if no criminal offence is deemed to have been committed when the verdict is handed down, then nothing is put on file pursuant to the Criminal Records Act?
The Committee's Researcher (Ms Côté): That's correct.
[English]
Mr. Wappel (Scarborough West): I really don't want to make any comments if we're going to stand this, but if we are going to stand this, I would ask that when the government comes back with an alternative proposal, they tell us why they have trouble with new subclauses 22.1(4) to 22.1(7). I think it's a rather innovative little idea.
If the only trouble perchance is that it might then be applied to the clause we're proposing to bring in vis-à-vis first offence, as talked about by the minister, then maybe that's not a problem.
I'd like to know if it's constitutional, from your point of view. If it is constitutional from your point of view, is there any other problem with it, other than that you simply don't like it? If so, what are the other problems? I think it's a kind of innovative approach and a good one.
.1555
Mr. MacLellan: We'd be prepared to discuss that.
The Chair: You'll discuss it later?
Mr. MacLellan: Yes. I think it would probably be better to discuss the whole thing at the same time.
Mr. Breitkreuz: I'd like to make one more comment. It was pointed out to me that at the present time there's an option as to how you safely store your firearms, and I think we should continue to leave that option. I don't think we have to require the firearms owner to store it in a certain way and go to that extra expense. Maybe the government should be sensitive to that kind of provision, which we already have in place. I don't think we have to make it more onerous.
Amendment allowed to stand [See Minutes of Proceedings]
On clause 23 - Authorization to transfer prohibited weapons, devices and ammunition
The Chair: We have one amendment received in advance, LW-4 by Mr. Wappel.
Mr. Wappel: This amendment is identical to LW-3 for the very same reasons. The government has indicated they're going to take a look at the wording of LW-3 and the meaning of ``ensures''. If the government is still of that view, then I wonder if we might stand this particular amendment pending that review, because no doubt what will happen with LW-3 would happen with LW-4. Am I correct in that?
Mr. MacLellan: Agreed.
Mr. Wappel: I would ask then for unanimous consent to stand it.
The Chair: I want to remind the committee that while we were making some good progress for a while this morning, we've stood the last four provisions.
Ms Meredith (Surrey - White Rock - South Langley): I'd like some clarification. The previous clause was stood before I could ask the question.
The Chair: Which clause are you talking about?
Ms Meredith: Clause 22, and now I'd like to ask the same question on clause 23 before we move on to clause 24.
In both of these you talk about ``prescribed conditions''. ``Prescribed conditions'' is not mentioned anywhere previously in this legislation, nor is it in the firearms regulations I have before me. Can you please explain to me why you even feel there's a need for adding ``prescribed conditions'' when you've laid out conditions quite clearly before that?
Mr. Mosley: I'm not sure I understand the question. The references to ``prescribed conditions'' relate to the manner in which an authorized transfer of a firearm is to take place.
Ms Meredith: But don't paragraph 23(2)(a) and subparagraphs 23(2)(b)(i) and (ii) establish the conditions?
Mr. Mosley: There may be additional conditions imposed by the chief firearms officer as to the manner in which that particular firearm is transferred.
Ms Meredith: But those conditions are going to have to be established by regulation. What are you looking at that you haven't already covered? What do you think is going to fall through the cracks that makes you add a provision to catch it? What are you afraid of that you haven't already covered in paragraphs 23(1)(a) and (b)?
Mr. Mosley: There may be a number of different things, but the honourable member is quite right. There is believed to be a need to have some flexibility with regard to the particular technology that's employed for this purpose and for that to be set out in the regulations.
You're right that the chief firearms officer is going to be applying the conditions that are set out in the regulations, but in applying them to a particular case, there may be a need to have some adjustment as to exactly how this transfer is conducted.
Ms Meredith: So then this is just an extra clause that's thrown in there in case you need it in the future? You're allowing Orders in Council regulations to fill in the gap if you find there is one?
.1600
It's a precautionary measure; is that what I'm hearing from you?
Mr. Mosley: When the chief firearms officer, under subparagraph 23(2)(a)(ii), authorizes the transfer, at that point in time the chief firearms officer may say yes, you can make the transfer, but do it in this manner. That would be subject to conditions set out in the regulations.
Ms Meredith: Okay, but we don't have regulations now.
Mr. Mosley: We don't have regulations now on that.
Ms Meredith: So they're going to have to establish conditions separate from the conditions already laid out in this clause and the previous clause.
Will they be the same conditions? You've made reference to ``prescribed conditions'' in clause 22 and again in clause 23. Will the same regulations and conditions apply to both types of transfers?
Mr. Mosley: I wouldn't describe what's set out in paragraphs 22(a) and (b) as conditions.
Ms Meredith: But they both read ``the prescribed conditions are complied with''.
Mr. Mosley: Right.
Ms Meredith: So they are conditions.
Mr. Mosley: They would be conditions set by the chief firearms officer at the time of the authorization.
Ms Meredith: But he's going to have to have regulations that establish the conditions. Or is he going to make regulations as he goes along?
Mr. Mosley: The regulations that the chief firearms officer would apply would be set out and submitted to Parliament, subject to scrutiny. Then those would be applied to a particular case. That would relate to how this whole process of transfer is carried out. I don't think I can make it any more explicit than that.
It may be that the transfer of ownership and the exchange of documents will be done by facsimile and that the regulations will permit that a facsimile of the authorization can be sent too, so long as it is in a particular form. That may be all there is in terms of a prescribed condition - that the documentation is in the prescribed form. I don't think there's anything more behind this than being able to flush out the details.
Ms Meredith: Okay, thank you.
The Chair: We stood clause 23. Now we shall go to clause 24.
On clause 24 - Authorization to transfer ammunition to individuals
The Chair: We have received one amendment in advance, BQ-7.
Mr. Ramsay: On a point or order, Mr. Chairman, we have amendments for clause 23. I'm trying to come in at the end of each clause where that is involved.
The Chair: That still is the case.
Mr. Ramsay: Yes, but I mention it to put it on the record. Thank you.
The Chair: All right.
We have amendment BQ-7 presented by Mrs. Venne.
[Translation]
Mrs. Venne: Mr. Chairman, the purpose of our amendment is to have the registration of firearms begin in 1996 and end in 2001, the same year firearm owners are supposed to have a firearms ownership license. The purpose of this amendment is for all of this to be over in the year 2001 instead of 2003. There were two deadlines, the first one dealing with the firearm owners' duty to register themselves and the second one, to register their firearms. We are therefore asking that everything begin on January 1st, 1996 and end on the same date in 2001, in the interest of coherence. This is the purpose of our amendment.
.1605
[English]
Mr. MacLellan: I frankly don't see anything wrong with this amendment. It may be in the interest to have this date as Madam Venne proposes. This was requested during our meetings by a couple of the witnesses, at least one that I know of.
Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]
Clause 24 as amended agreed to on division
On clause 25 - Authorization to transfer firearms to the Crown and to the police
The Chair: We've received no amendments to this clause. Are there any questions, comments or explanations?
Mr. Ramsay: On clause 25 and others, I just want to be clear on this because I've been asked by individuals. When we refer to the transfer of ammunition, does that include a sale of ammunition?
Mr. Mosley: Yes.
Mr. Ramsay: I think that covers it, Mr. Chairman.
[Translation]
The Chairman: Mr. de Savoye.
Mr. de Savoye (Portneuf): You know, I'm learning a lot from the people on this committee and I want to learn even more because you can never know too much.
Clause 25 deals with the transfer of firearms and therefore refers to the definition of transfer, meaning to sell, barter or give. For instance, if a business wants to sell its weapons to the army, it must first check, if I understand correctly, whether the Armed Forces have an acquisition authorization certificate. Let's go back to the subject of equipment. Could someone explain to me how, in practice, a business may sell firearms to Her Majesty, to a province or to the police? I would like to know how much trouble it will be for businesses. And I am sure that this will be of interest to Mr. Lee as well.
[English]
Mr. Mosley: I don't think there's anything in clause 25 that affects the situation of a business in Canada that wants to sell firearms to the Department of National Defence or to a police department. Sales are subject to normal business -
Mr. de Savoye: Which are?
Mr. Mosley: I may be missing something in the question.
Mr. de Savoye: I want to know how this will translate to the daily reality of an arms manufacturer who is doing business with the army, a police force or whatever. How will it translate? What will be the unfolding of events?
There's a new registry in place. The person to whom you're selling arms must hold a permit. How will this be checked - over a fax or what? That's the way to do business nowadays, and you cannot check this over a fax. Or can you?
Mr. Mosley: Perhaps I'll back up. If they're selling to Her Majesty in right of Canada, to a province or to a police force, those institutional bodies are not in the same situation as if there's a sale to an individual.
What clause 25 requires is that there is notification to the registrar so the registrar can record the fact of the transfer to those bodies. That's all it requires.
.1610
Mr. de Savoye: It's difficult to believe that an arms manufacturer will only have to inform the registrar of the transfer by a fax, without even checking what's going on at the other end.
[Translation]
So they would have to deal with the police corps and the permit holder in question, since this is all subject to the application of clauses 21 to 31, and of clause 20. I am also trying to see things as a whole, to see what is interrelated. If you tell me that it is as simple as that, I am prepared to believe you.
[English]
Mr. Mosley: Earlier today we spoke about the requirement in the act that the registrar maintain a record of all of the firearms held by the federal Crown, the provincial Crown, etc.
There are two aspects to this. One is that the person who is making the sale is going to have to notify the registrar of the transfer to that institution. Separately, the institution has to ensure that it informs the registrar of the firearms it has within its possession.
In both ways there is information flowing to the registrar so the transfer of that firearm and the receipt and possession of that firearm are recorded by the registrar.
[Translation]
Mr. de Savoye: Up to now, I understand you. But now, let us make this a bit more lively. I send a fax to an arms manufacturer, claiming that I represent a police corps, the Saint-Catherine Police, and ordering a certain number of revolvers. I agree that the registrar be notified but I am giving my own address; I will get those firearms and I am ill-intentioned. Where do you catch me?
[English]
Where do you catch me?
Mr. Mosley: There's nothing specifically in the bill that addresses the practical problem of ensuring there's not an abuse of the system. There is provision for prescribing conditions under regulation and it could be addressed in that manner, but it's a good point.
Mr. de Savoye: The way I see it, if I can get my firearm at Canadian Tire, I can just pretend I'm a police corps of some kind and get it through a fax. Tell me otherwise.
Mr. Mosley: There are different ways to approach it. One is that somebody who is operating a firearms sales business will of course be subject to conditions on how they run their business. We would expect them to take precautions to ensure they are dealing with a legitimate police department or agency of government.
But it's not inconceivable that somebody could pull off a scam in a firearms business. That's entirely possible.
[Translation]
M. de Savoye: If I want to sell my firearm to my colleague, I must check that he is a permit holder and make sure that everything is in order. But if I have a business and I want to sell a weapon or firearms to a police department, I do not have to check these things. You assume, however, that the business will do it. I think you are taking too much for granted. There is a loophole here, obviously, here, and I did not get a satisfactory answer. You say that it is all very simple, but it appears to me that, in fact it is too simple.
[English]
Mr. MacLellan: This clause is not made to correct a lot of problems. It's in a very narrow area. There will be regulations, and we will certainly take the concerns of Mr. de Savoye into consideration when we're drafting regulations. Hopefully we can give him the answers at that time.
Mr. de Savoye: So it won't be that simple.
Mr. MacLellan: It's not that difficult.
.1615
We're trying to bring forward something that has to be considered. We're not trying to correct all of the possibilities that can exist under this clause. We will look at them when we're drafting regulations. You've brought up some good points and I think they're worthy of consideration.
[Translation]
Mr. de Savoye: I am happy to see that we share that concern.
Mr. MacLellan: Thank you very much.
The Chair: Mr. Lee.
[English]
Mr. Lee (Scarborough - Rough River): Could you confirm that somewhere in the code, or the act, there is a definition of ``police force''? I couldn't find one. In the event that there is not, it is arguable that, just as the firearms manufacturer who appeared here sold weapons to the Federal Bureau of Investigation in the United States, they could in the future similarly sell them to the police force in Cincinnati, Ohio by following section 25, which would allow them to inform the registrar and ship, although there would also be the export provisions of the statute. Is there a definition? If there's not, would you accept that -
Mr. Mosley: Not to my knowledge.
Mr. Lee: Thank you.
On clause 25 - Authorization to transfer firearms to the Crown and to the police
Clause 25 agreed to on division
The Chair: We'll move to clause 26 which deals with the duties of the Chief firearms officer with respect to transfers. I've received one amendment from the government entitled G-15. Who is ready to proposed G-15?
Mr. Wappel: I'll propose that. It's a drafting amendment. I could put forward exactly the same arguments I did the last time regarding ``subsection'' substituting for ``paragraph.''
The Chair: Are there any questions with respect to this amendment?
Clause 26 as amended agreed to on division
.1620
In the particular instance you mentioned, there was a blip in the number of applications that were made during one period of time. The office of the chief provincial firearms officer has so many staff to process them, and it took an extended period of time. On average, in normal conditions it shouldn't take six months to process any application.
Mr. Breitkreuz: One of the problems that came up in our province is the person had met all the conditions required but it still was not processed. No reason was given. It would be helpful to put in some kind of a guideline, even if it is as long as 28 days, so that the person processing it would have some onus put on them to try to do this as quickly as possible. If you leave it like this, then someone may have a grudge against another person and just not want to process the application or the transfer.
Mr. MacLellan: Frankly, if we put in a time, I think that could act adversely. Giving an outside period as to when this had to be done may mean more, rather than fewer, delays. I think if there is a general expectation in the public that these matters will be handled as quickly as possible, that is going to be the best incentive for this to take place. I honestly believe that not to have a date is a much better way of proceeding.
Mr. Breitkreuz: You've got all the onus being put on certain people here to comply with this, but it doesn't seem to be balanced off by any entitlements that the gun owner would have.
The Chair: Mr. Mosley.
Mr. Mosley: Maybe that is an issue that would be best addressed when the regulations come before Parliament for consideration. The time limit is no longer going to be in the act. It is not in this bill with regard to the applications, but it would be in the regulations. If members felt it appropriate to put a cap on the amount of time it would take, it could be done more easily in regulations than by putting a specific provision in the act. There would have to be some exceptions for the exigent circumstances that can arise in trying to process these things.
[Translation]
The Chair: Mr. de Savoye.
Mr. de Savoye: I'm always trying to put myself in the shoes of the average citizen. After all, that's what I was not so long ago.
Let us suppose I have been waiting in vain for my license for six months; what do I do next? What is my recourse?
[English]
Mr. MacLellan: I would say you should call and complain or try to get changes made.
[Translation]
Mr. de Savoye: I have been trying that for six months.
[English]
Mr. MacLellan: If you haven't got it, then the chances are that others haven't got it, as well. I think there's going to be quite an outcry if that's the way the office is being run. I don't think it's going to take very long to have a concerted effort to have changes made. In the long run, I think that's really the best possible way of dealing with it.
Mr. Bosley has said that certainly we can look at this when we deal with the regulations. I honestly don't think that putting a time limit in the act is the best way to proceed.
[Translation]
Mr. de Savoye: But Mr. Mosley has just said that a solution might be included in the regulations, whereas you do not think it is the best way to proceed. I really feel there's contradiction here. On the one hand the argument is to rely on public opinion, which is going to prevail, whereas on the other hand I am told this could be done within the regulations. Could you give us some clarifications on that?
[English]
Mr. MacLellan: I said that in the act is not the best place to put it. It's a different story in the regulations.
Frankly, I am not personally in favour of a time limit at all, because I think it's going to have more of a harmful effect than a positive effect. Once you put in a time limit that says something has to be done by such-and-such a time, with human nature being what it is, some people will wait until close to that time limit before responding and doing it, whereas if it has to be done as reasonably quickly as possible, then that is going to be more of an incentive to get it done earlier.
I said in the act is not the best place to put it, in the regulations that's a different story.
Frankly, I'm not in favour of a time limit at all because I think it's going to have more of a harmful than a positive effect. A time limit says something has to be done by such and such a time and human nature being what it is with some people, they'll wait close to that time limit before responding and doing it. Frankly, my experience has been that if it is has to be done as reasonably quickly as possible, the that is going to be more of an incentive to get it done at earlier point in time.
I don't favour a time period in the act, but maybe, as Mr. Mosley said, it is certainly something we could consider when dealing with the regulations.
[Translation]
Mr. de Savoye: If you had been a teacher you would have had trouble with your students, they wouldn't have handed in their papers on time.
Mr. MacLellan: That may be so.
.1625
Ms Meredith: I'm going to follow up on what my honourable colleague, Mr. de Savoye, was raising. Once again, we see where the chief firearms officer is to verify whether the indivudual can have the firearm or not. Then, the officer has to verify the purpose for which the person wants to acquire it and decide whether or not the transfer will be approved.
Then we've got subclause 26.(d), that they take the prescribed measures. If we're not talking about operating with a certain period of timeor putting some regulation as to when they're going to do it, what are we talking about? What are the prescribed measures?
Ms Irit Weiser (Senior Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice Canada): The prescribed measures reference there is to provide flexibility. As you're aware, the transport of long guns can be done electronically. It's matter of swiping cards through machines and the approval, in the case of a long gun, can be done through electronic means.
We put in the reference to prescribed measures because, with the rate that technology advances, there may be ways in which we can do transfers in the future in a more efficient manner. Rather than havingo re-open the act, we would be able to prepare regulations; they would go before committee, and perhaps make life easier for gun-owners.
Thank you.
Ms Meredith: Just out of curiosity, in all these transfers that are done by electronic means, will there be any verfication that the record being transferred is in fact relating to the firearm that's being transferred?
Ms Weiser: All of that will be done. Allof the following can be done through electronic means - the serial number can be verified, the criminal record can be checked, and the transfer of the gun from a deal to a buying individual can be done.
Ms Meredith: How can you verify that registration number is actually on the firearm that's being transferred& How can you do that by electronic means? Somebody gives you a number; you know the number is accurate and it does belong to a firearm. How do you know that umber belongs tot the firearms I'm going to give to my colleague?
Mr. Mosley: Each firearm will be accompanied by the registration card, which will be unique to that firearm, with a number -
Ms Meredith: It's like a bar code.
Mr. Mosley: - with a bar code, machine readable, and with a specific number that's specific to that firearm.
Ms Meredith: Thank you.
M. Ramsay: I want to follow up on this term «transfer», which actually means a sale, as was corroborated in clause 25.
When I look at clause 26 and the issue of ammunition, it states:
- On being informed of a proposed transfer of ammunition
- - That means on being informed of a proposed sale of ammunition. Before that can happen -
- a chief firearms officer shall (a) verify (i) whether the transferee or individual holds a licence,
(ii) whether the transferee or individual is still eligible to hold that licence, and (iii) whether the
licence authorizes the transferee or individual to acquire that kind of firearm or to acquire...
ammunition.
Mr. Mosley: I think that's the way it reads. Yes.
Mr. Ramsay: Is this what this legislation is going to impose upon the firearms owners of Canada in order to buy a box of ammunition?
Mr. Breitkreuz: This is unbelievable. I don't think you can reasonably expect this to happen.
The Chair: Mr. Ramsay has the floor.
Mr. Breitkreuz: I'm sorry. I didn't realize the microphone was on.
Mr. MacLellan: We shall look at that.
Mr. Ramsay: Do you have any amendments coming forward to deal with this clause?
Mr. MacLellan: Not specifically on this, because the amendment you have is the amendment that was already before the committee. But we will certainly look at that, because, frankly, it seems to be a bit excessive.
Mr. Mosley: A solution to the problem that Mr. Ramsay has identified might be by deleting the reference to ammunition in that list. It would still read to include prohibited ammunition - of course, firearm prohibited weapon, prohibited device, prohibited ammunition for proposed importation.
.1630
The question is whether ``ammunition'' properly belongs there in the context of the purchase by an individual. It's a very good question.
Mr. Ramsay: If we look at the statistics, these regulations are designed to put a large percentage of the gun owners at this kind of an onerous inconvenience. I don't know if it's workable or acceptable.
If the justice minister would be willing to strike ``ammunition'' out of the first portion of clause 26, and then again under subparagraph (a)(iii), that would cover the problem this clause creates for people who honestly want to go about their business of hunting and shooting.
Mr. MacLellan: I think we should make that proposal, look at it, but I would like to make the amendment in writing so that all members can have a chance to look at it. I don't want to do it on the fly. But we'll certainly do that.
Mr. Ramsay: Could we stand this clause, then, Mr. Chairman?
The Chair: You can do whatever you wish. If that's what you want....
Is there agreement to stand this clause?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. MacLellan: It would be better if we did.
Clause 26 allowed to stand
On clause 27 - Permitted purposes
The Chair: Clause 27 deals with the authorization to transfer.
We've received two amendments in advance, G-16 and G-17. Who's going to propose G-16? I think it is Mr. Wappel.
Mr. Wappel: I will propose G-16, for exactly the same reasons as the previous two amendments I've proposed, with respect to these identical reasons, in effect removing paragraph (a) from line 45.
The Chair: Is there any discussion with respect to G-16?
[Translation]
Mr. de Savoye: Mr. Chairman, I have been signalling a little while...
The Chair: I didn't see your hand, I'm sorry.
Mr. de Savoye: I realize that.
The Chair: Excuse me, did you put up your hand before I called the vote?
Mr. de Savoye: Yes, I almost ink stained my neighbour.
[English]
The Chair: We haven't carried G-16.
[Translation]
Mr. de Savoye: We are at page 16, on clause 27? We are talking about lines 44 and 45? This is impossible because the page ends at line 36. What is it in the French version? Is it only the English version that's changed? Perfect, I understand. Thank you.
The Chair: It's an amendment to the English version.
Mr. de Savoye: Thank you, my mistake.
[English]
Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]
The Chair: Who will propose G-17?
Mr. Lee: I'll move that.
This is an amendment to the English version so that it will correspond to the French version. As happened in an earlier clause, we wished to ensure that the English version uses the English word ``need'', as opposed to the English word ``wishes''. That would correspond to the use of the French verb ``avoir besoin''.
In addition to that -
The Chair: Excuse me; I don't know if we're looking at the wrong item. I'm looking at amendment G-17 on clause 27. It starts by saying,
- That clause 27 of Bill C-68 be amended by striking out lines 2 to 17 on page 17 and substituting
the following:
- the chief firearms officer is satisfied
- (a)
- - and then (b).
Mr. Lee: That's correct. If you'll let me continue, perhaps I will address the easiest amendment first.
There is also a structural change to this clause, which you have just noticed. It's a very significant change, at least visually, but the only really substantial change is that we've changed what is called in English, using the French word chapeau.... Mr. Wappel and colleagues will take note of that. In the chapeau we've changed it by inserting that the chief firearms officer must be satisfied of the listing of items, which were earlier listed as (a), (b), (c) and (d), but are now listed as (a) with two items and (b) with two additional items.
The change is not purely technical. There is the translation change, the English and French versions change, and the restructuring of it to insert the structural change I just mentioned, which is underlined in the draft.
The Chair: Are there any further comments?
Mr. MacLellan: No, none.
[Translation]
Mrs. Venne: This came up after the Bloc Québécois pointed out that there was a difference between the two versions. We changed the structure of the clause, in French as well as in English, so that one has to need a firearm for the following purposes, that is, to protect life, for use in connection with an occupation, for use in target practice or to form part of a gun collection. That's really why these changes were brought in and that is what we had asked before. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chair: Any other comments?
[English]
Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]
Clause 27 as amended agreed to on division
Mr. Ramsay: On a point of order. We have an amendment that would be an insertion of an additional -
The Chair: Which one are you talking about?
Mr. Ramsay: Clause 27, the one we just finished.
The Chair: Oh, I see.
Mr. Ramsay: It just carried?
The Chair: Yes. You know, I'm willing to be very cooperative, Mr. Ramsay, but I've asked that you indicate this before we carry a clause. I asked whether the clause should carry, and nobody said anything. Somebody on your team has to be alert.
Mr. Ramsay: Well, we're moving along pretty fast.
The Chair: You think this is fast?
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Ramsay: I mean that we are in terms of the consideration of our amendments.
The Chair: We have agreed to that clause and now you are telling me you want to make an amendment. I think that's -
Mr. Ramsay: Well, we have an amendment coming. If it's too late for the amendment, that's fine.
The Chair: I recommend that would be one you could put in the House.
I want to be as tolerant and as open as possible, and we are moving slowly because I try to give lots of time, but I ask you to make sure that, when you want a clause stood, you alert me before I ask whether the clause shall carry. That's all I ask.
Mr. Ramsay: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In fact, I did that and you told me to bring it in at the end, and that's what I've been trying to do.
The Chair: What I mean is that I want to be fair -
Mr. Ramsay: I understand, and I'll try to accommodate the chair on this.
The Chair: I don't want this to happen again, because I'm trying to be fair to you.
.1640
When I said at the end, I meant that, when I call the clause and we have discussion, when I ask whether the clause shall carry, at that point you should say that you prefer the clause not to carry because you have an amendment coming. Then we could consider standing the clause.
On clause 28 - Shooting clubs and shooting ranges
The Chair: We now move to clause 28, which deals with shooting clubs and ranges.
We have two amendments: R-7 by the Reform Party and G-18 by the government.
Mr. Ramsay, you have the floor for your amendment.
Mr. Ramsay: Subclause 28(1) reads:
- 28.(1) A provincial minister may approve a shooting club or shooting range for the
purposes of paragraphs 18(1)(a) and 27(c) if
- (a) the shooting club or shooting range complies with the regulations made under
paragraph 110(e);
- 110. The Governor in Council may make regulations...
- (e) respecting
- (i) the establishment and operation of shooting clubs and shooting ranges,
- (ii) the activities that may be carried on at shooting clubs and shooting ranges,
- (iii) the possession and use of firearms at shooting clubs and shooting ranges, and
- (iv) the keeping and destruction of records in relation to shooting clubs and shooting
ranges and members of those clubs and ranges;
The Chair: Mr. MacLellan, have you any response to this proposed amendment?
Mr. MacLellan: Yes. This would go a lot further than the situation at the present time. It would delegate a lot of things to the provincial minister. Certainly, with the complete regulation of gun clubs, there would not be any federal jurisdiction at all with respect to these guns clubs. The provinces would even make the regulations, and there would not be any parliamentary review at all with respect to the gun clubs.
I think this goes a lot further than the Minister of Justice is prepared to go.
Mr. Ramsay: Just to add to that, when we had the Attorney General, from Saskatchewan I think, I asked that specific question, if my memory is correct. I asked whether they now have authority in these areas to regulate the establishment and operation of shooting clubs, ranges and so on.
I don't know if subparagraph (iv) would come in here:
- the keeping and destruction of records in relation to shooting clubs and shooting ranges....
I see an incursion of the federal government into an area that until now has been primarily handled by provincial authorities. I'm concerned about that, and the purpose of the amendment is to maintain the provincial jurisdiction in this particular area.
.1645
Mr. MacLellan: Mr. Chairman, there are some provincial powers in the regulation of the clubs, but, even now, there's no power to make regulations, which this section would give to the provinces. It would take away all federal regulation of these gun clubs, and I think that this just goes too far.
Ms Meredith: Just for my own clarification, are there federal regulations to do with how a gun club operates now?
A voice: No.
Ms Meredith: So why does the government feel that the federal government should get into regulating how local gun clubs operate?
Mr. Mosley: My understanding is that really nothing is regulating the operation of the gun clubs at present. During our consultations with the provinces, they very much wanted national standards that would not be disparate from province to province.
In effect, what the proposal would do is to give the regulation-making authority, which rests with the Governor in Council, to the provincial minister. At that point there would be nothing to maintain any sort of national uniformity or national standards. It could vary from province to province.
I'd also point out that this would probably take it completely out of the scope of any federal scrutiny by Parliament of what those regulations might be.
Also, I think there are some real questions about delegating law-making authority to a subsidiary official.
Not only does this purport to give it to the provincial minister, but if you read the last subsection, it then gives the provincial minister the authority to delegate to a provincial public servant, the chief provincial firearms officer, the authority even to make the regulations. This Parliament would be losing complete control over what those regulations might be.
Ms Meredith: My understanding - and I could be completely wrong here - of how a local gun club operates now is that first they have to have the go-ahead in the municipality in which they're located even to be in existence, that the municipal government regulates the presence of a local gun range within its boundaries. So you have a municipal government with controls.
The provincial government already makes regulations as to transportation of firearms, and even, in some cases, other requirements through hunting and fishing regulations and licensing. There's already a provincial involvement in some of the auxiliary areas of firearms, their transportation and movement.
Just to finish that, certainly it's already the provincial firearms officers who apply the regulations for even the federal government legislation.
Mr. Mosley: If I could distinguish between those two points that the honourable member has made, the first point is under land use regulations. A municipality, under provincial authority, can deal with any business that wants to set up within its boundaries, so that of course applies.
Ms Meredith: For use of land.
Mr. Mosley: The second point is that the provincial officials who issue the permits to transport restricted weapons can refuse to issue a permit to transport to a location of which they don't approve, a gun club of which they don't approve. They're acting under the federal authority that's in the Criminal Code. They're not acting under provincial authority. So they're exercising, under 110, the authority to issue a permit, and in doing so, they set conditions as to where you can then go with that gun.
To that extent, they have an indirect form of regulating gun clubs, but I'm not aware of any comprehensive set of regulations relating to how gun clubs themselves operate. What is being proposed, as part of this initiative, is to have such regulations, which would be presented to Parliament for its consideration in the normal manner, made by the Governor in Council to apply nationally.
.1650
They'd be administered at the local level by the province, but they would be national regulations made by the federal government and examined by this Parliament, not being made by a provincial minister.
Ms Meredith: Do those kinds of national regulations on the operation of this kind of facility, be it a ski hill or anything else, exist, or is this just one type of recreational use of property that you've decided the federal government needs to regulate. Are there national regulations for the operation of something like a ski hill?
Mr. Mosley: I've no idea.
The Chair: I had a question on this following up on the question Ms Meredith asked. She asked why there should be federal regulations in this field.
If I recall the evidence of the vice-chancellor of Concordia University, when he was telling us the story about Valery Fabrikant, Valery Fabrikant had obtained his permit for restricted weapons - i.e., a handgun - by joining a shooting club. It was found that he never went to that shooting club.
I've been told that some shooting clubs are very responsible and keep in touch to see if their members are indeed active, if they are indeed competitive shooters, if they are indeed serious about the business of competitive shooting, but others are very lax and very sloppy, with the result that people are getting restricted weapons on the basis that they're a member of a shooting club when, in fact, they are a member in name only.
It was my understanding that this regulation power, among other things, would require the shooting clubs to report and check on their members for public safety reasons in order to avoid incidents such as the Fabrikant case, where Fabrikant was able to get a handgun on the pretext of being a member of a shooting club when, in fact, he wasn't active at all.
Are these the kinds of regulations one would have in mind when we talk about regulations to deal with shooting clubs and ranges?
Mr. Mosley: That's exactly correct. A requirement to simply keep a record of who uses the facility and when they use it...would be necessary. When, every five years, the question of a renewable licence comes up and somebody says, ``I've been a member of such-and-such a gun club for the past five years and I've gone there on a regular basis'', there has to be some means to be able to check whether that's accurate or not.
Mr. Breitkreuz: I had two questions. One has been answered. The second one is in regard to the constitutionality of this particular provision. If you leave this in here, does that not open it up to a constitutional challenge?
Mr. MacLellan: No, I don't think so. On what basis?
Mr. Breitkreuz: The witnesses who came before us from the provinces said this is a regulation of private property, which in the Constitution belongs to the provinces.
Mr. MacLellan: No. It's not. It's a regulation of the conditions of the bill. It's not through private property. It's a club. It's not interfering with the property. It's regulating what the club should be doing in accordance with this bill.
Mr. Breitkreuz: I suspect that that will be challenged in the courts.
The Chair: Are you regulating property or are you regulating activities of the gun club?
Mr. Mosley: The activities. We wouldn't be regulating matters that are properly within the purview of the province, such as health and safety at the gun club, but rather the activities there relating to the Firearms Act.
Mr. Ramsay: What does it mean, then, under clause 110(e): ``respecting...the establishment and operation of shooting clubs''? It's not just the operation of shooting clubs; it's the establishment.
The federal government will be creating regulations respecting the establishment of shooting clubs. So it's going beyond just the activities within the shooting club or the operation of the shooting club.
.1655
I'd like to point as well that if we want to look at the extent to which the federal government is moving into provincial areas and new areas, take a look at paragraph 110(d) respecting the use of firearms in target practice. Does that mean - and I'd like to ask the officials - that if I go out to my brother's farm and we want to put a tin pail up against a bank and shoot at it for target practice, this is going to be regulated by the federal government as target practice?
Mr. Mosley: There's no national uniformity now with regard to, for example, the use of automatic weapons in target practice. I think one province permits it one day a year. I may be wrong about that, but it's a very exceptional occurrence. That's what what refers to: whether you'd be able to take out a prohibited weapon and use it in that kind of example.
With respect to establishment and operation, ``establishment'' may be the word that's causing concern. In that respect, what was in mind was basic requirements. For instance, the club should have a board of directors. The names of those individuals are recorded and they keep track of who their members are so people aren't coming and going. That type of information will serve to support the objective of the licensing scheme in this act.
Mr. Ramsay: If I can just follow up on that, there is no indication in paragraph 110(d) that describes the activity of target practice. I don't see anywhere where it refers to the use of automatic or semi-automatic rifles. It simply refers to ``respecting the use of firearms in target practice or target shooting competitions''. Of course, I'm focusing on target practice. The federal government will have the power to make regulations that will govern target practice or shooting at targets.
The Chair: Please speak out loudly. I couldn't hear what you were saying. I'm sorry. A point of order.
Ms Phinney: At this point, I think it's the third time the exchange has been back and forth on clause 110. I would like to see it go back to the clause we're doing.
The Chair: Yes. That's not relevant. We're discussing, actually, Mr. Ramsay's amendment, which is R-7, which relates to clause 28. There's only an oblique reference to clause 110 in the -
Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Chairman, it's not an oblique reference. It -
Ms Phinney: It's in clause 28.
The Chair: We seem to have had a lot of discussion on clause 110, and I would ask that we confine our discussion to your proposed amendment.
Mr. Ramsay: With respect, Mr. Chairman, paragraph 28(1)(a) refers directly to paragraph 110(e), and that's why the reference has been made to clause 110.
The Chair: Yes, I know, but your amendment doesn't dwell principally on that point. In any case, I'll listen to your questions, but I ask you to be relevant to your own amendment. Argue in favour of your own amendment?
Mr. Ramsay: Yes, I'm in favour of my own amendment.
The Chair: I'm asking if you would confine your remarks to arguments in favour of your own amendment. You're entitled to argue in favour of your own amendment.
Mr. Ramsay: Well, I was wondering.
The Chair: You have the floor.
Mr. Ramsay: I point out, for the benefit of the members of the committee who will be voting on this motion, that what we are going to decide here with this motion is whether or not we're going to allow the federal government to encroach upon provincial jurisdiction, areas where they do not now have regulation. They're going to impose regulation on what has been primarily a provincial activity regulated by municipal and provincial government. I have some concerns about that. That's why I moved the motion.
The Chair: I understand your arguments. They're very clear, and I guess there may be a division of opinion on that.
.1700
Ms Meredith: I want to follow up on something Mr. Mosley mentioned about the federal government wanting to make sure that these target clubs or these gun clubs register the names of the boards of directors and the rules under which they operate. There are provincial regulations that make organized clubs do precisely that. They have to submit yearly minutes and reports that change names and locations. So, again, it's a provincial jurisdiction that the federal government is trying to take over.
Mr. Ramsay: It's a power grab.
The Chair: I'm sorry; I was distracted. Did you get an answer to your question, or your point?
We're dealing with Mr. Ramsay's amendment to clause 28, which is entitled R-7.
Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings]
The Chair: We now go to amendment G-18, which replaced a previous G-18. It has been distributed to you this afternoon.
Ms Torsney (Burlington): I'm moving that.
The Chair: Have you anything to say on that amendment?
Ms Torsney: This amendment clarifies that the provincial attorneys general must approve all the shooting clubs and will work in the interest of public safety to uphold safety and conduct standards at the shooting clubs.
Secondly, it's in the interest of the clubs themselves, because getting the stamp of approval from the province will boost their legitimacy as an organization. I'm sure the officials have further comment.
Mr. MacLellan: It would just correct a mistake, as Ms Torsney has said.
The Chair: Do you mean a mistake in the original bill?
Mr. MacLellan: Yes, that the provincial minister would be approving shooting clubs for restricted firearms, but not other shooting clubs.
Mr. Wappel: I have a question for the officials. I note with pleasure that there is a requirement that reasons be delivered in the event that a refusal to approve or a decision to revoke is made and that a copy of sections 72 to 79 must be provided.
A cursory glance at clauses 72 to 79 doesn't appear to include clause 28 decisions in clauses 72 to 79. Am I right, and if I'm not, could you show me why? If I am right, will you be bringing an amendment to clause 72 to include clause 28 decisions?
Mr. Mosley: I think the operative provision is 72(1)(a) with regard to the reference to the provincial court judge.
Mr. Wappel: Yes.
Mr. Mosley: You said clause 70. It's clauses 72 to 79.
Mr. Wappel: Yes.
Mr. Mosley: If it's not abundantly clear that this would be included in that, then I think we can deal with that when we get to clause 72.
Mr. Wappel: Okay.
Mr. Mosley: It is the intent to have the reference procedure apply to refusals under this provision.
Mr. Wappel: It isn't abundantly clear, Mr. Mosley, because paragraph 72(1)(a) refers to a decision of a chief firearms officer or the registrar, but does not in any way refer to a decision made by a provincial minister.
Mr. Mosley: That's right.
Mr. Wappel: All right. So you'll be looking at that?
Mr. Mosley: Yes.
Amendment agreed to on division [See Minutes of Proceedings]
Clause 28 as amended agreed to on division
The Chair: Members of the committee, I'm advised that the bells will start ringing at 5:15 p.m. for four votes to take place at 5:30 p.m. These votes are on a Reform opposition motion relating to employment equity; a Bloc opposition motion on Quebec's financial requests; Bill C-91, the Federal Business Development Act motion to refer before second reading; and Bill C-82, the Royal Canadian Mint Act.
.1705
Our whip has said we were scheduled to adjourn at 6 p.m. anyway. The votes are at 5:30 p.m. I'm in your hands. We could try to do clause 29, or we could adjourn now. Also, our whip has said that we could carry through to 6 p.m. and not attend the votes, but I know the opposition will probably want to attend, since it's their parties' motions. If that's the case, we would have to adjourn. Do you want to try to do another clause? We have only a few minutes to do it in.
Mrs. Venne: It's a short one.
On clause 29-Gun collectors
The Chair: We'll try clause 29. This deals with gun collectors, and one amendment, G-19, has been received in advance. Is somebody ready to move the amendment?
Mr. Wappel: I guess that Mr. Lee has left. I'll move that, and I'll do so because this is a consequential amendment to clause 27, which I believe we passed by way of amendment G-17. Therefore, since it's passed, it is again a technical amendment changing paragraph to subparagraph, because we are now into an (ii) instead of merely a (b). Again it is a technical drafting matter, the ones I most love to propose.
Amendment agreed to on division [See Minutes of Proceedings]
Clause 29 as amended agreed to on division
Mr. Wappel: Keep going. We're on a roll.
Clause 30 agreed to on division
On clause 31-Mail-order transfers of firearms
The Chair: No amendments to clause 31 were received in advance. Are there any questions or comments with respect to clause 31?
Just a minute, Mr. Hill. Are you on the committee now?
Mr. Hill (Prince George - Peace River): Yes.
The Chair: Mr. Hill, you have the floor.
Mr. Hill: Thank you, and I'm glad I'm on the committee now, Mr. Chairman, especially since I'm sitting here.
The Chair: Sometimes people sit there but they're not members of the committee.
Mr. Hill: I understand perfectly. My question would deal with an explanation for ``prescribed manner'' found in (a) and ``prescribed conditions'' found in (c). I would like an explanation of what exactly that should include, or what the intent is under those designations.
Mr. MacLellan: Prescribed conditions...?
Mr. Hill: Well, the first is ``the transfer in the prescribed manner'', yet the prescribed manner for the transfer is undefined.
Mr. MacLellan: The prescribed manner will be as prescribed in the regulations, and the prescribed conditions will be in accordance with the conditions set out in the regulations.
.1710
Mr. Hill: But could you enlighten me and the people I represent on what you envision as those prescribed manners of transfer?
Mr. MacLellan: I don't have the regulations. Maybe Mr. Mosley has some idea of what shape they will take, so I'll ask him.
The Chair: On a point of order, Madame Venne.
[Translation]
Mrs. Venne: I would just like to mention that our Reform Party colleagues asked this question fairly often. It might be good for them to pass the word among themselves when they replace each other so that they know the definition they keep asking for one after the other. This definition has been given at the very beginning, upon the request of Ms Meredith.
The gentleman was not here, I understand, but if each new person replacing Ms Meredith asks the same thing, we will have the explanation several times. It is what we have now.
[English]
The Chair: I appreciate your intervention, but it's not a point of order. Perhaps it will be listened to.
Mr. Hill, you have the floor. Mr. Mosley was in the process of answering.
Mr. Mosley: Under paragraph 31(a), the ``prescribed manner'' would relate to the means by which the verifications, notifications, issuances and authorizations, such as forms, electronic transfer of information, etc., could be employed to make use of that provision.
Under paragraph 31(c), ``prescribed conditions'' relate to conditions that may be imposed under paragraph 31(a) or (b) relating to the authorization issued by the chief firearms officer. These will be prescribed by regulations made under section 110 of the act and submitted to Parliament for its scrutiny.
Mr. Hill: I understand that. What I was trying to get at was if the witness could enlighten me as to the intention of those regulations.
It's fine to say the conditions will be prescribed under clause 110 when the regulations come forward.
In rebuttal to Madam Venne, while you may have had an explanation of what ``prescribed'' means in some of the other clauses, it's something different in each clause. We're really buying a pig in a poke here just to be able to say that it's all going to be encompassed in regulations at some future time, when no one - certainly no one sitting at this table - has any idea of what those regulations will or will not include.
The Chair: At an earlier time it was agreed that regulations will be referred to this committee, as they were under Bill C-17, and the committee will have an opportunity to review them before the proclamation of the law, which comes further down the road.
Is that not correct?
Mr. MacLellan: That's correct.
Mr. Ramsay: On the same point, I think we should respect one another's interventions. There are 75 different places where the regulations appear in this bill, which grants enormous powers to the Governor in Council and the minister. Any member who wishes information on what these prescribed regulations will be, if there is information, should be provided with it at this time.
I don't think that's an improper intervention at all.
The Chair: I have to agree with you, Mr. Ramsay. As long as the questions are relevant to the clause, the questions can be asked. If they were irrelevant to the clause, then I would rule them out of order.
[Translation]
Mrs. Venne: I would like to make a comment, Mr. Chairman. We have just heard that we will have the same question 75 times; I am very happy to know that now, so that we know what to expect. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[English]
The Chair: The questions can be in order, but it's up to one's political judgment whether they should put them over and over again. I won't comment on that.
I have to rule that these questions are in order. If the word ``prescribed'' is mentioned in a clause, then members may ask what is intended by the prescription. Many of us may know, but some members may not. The question may be asked as long as they're members of the committee, even though it may become tedious for many of us.
[Translation]
Mrs. Venne: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman. Is that not called a dilatory tactic in law?
.1715
[English]
The Chair: If it became that, then somebody might raise it. It might be argued before a court, but here, when we're dealing with the clauses, it's in order to ask the question.
If it looks as if it's being used as a dilatory tactic, then somebody might raise that and it'll be discussed at that time.
So far it has not been raised.
Mr. Hill: I appreciate the ruling.
Where concerns have been expressed to me by constituents on some of these clauses containing the term ``prescribe'', what I'm endeavouring to do, if the witnesses and the panel in front of us are unable to describe at this point in time what the regulations may or may not define as a ``prescribed manner'', is to have them on the record as saying that once a particular clause is in the regulations it will be before the committee. I think that's fair. It's certainly fair to the people back home who are watching these clauses with a lot of interest.
The Chair: Are there further questions or comments with respect to clause 31?
Mr. Breitkreuz: Just on this point, you mentioned that these would be before the committee before this comes into force. How long before?
The Chair: I can't tell you.
Mr. Breitkreuz: Is it before report stage or before third reading that we'll see these?
The Chair: The members who were here after Bill C-17 was passed reviewed the regulations before the bill was proclaimed. Once this bill is passed, it will take several years for many of the measures to come into force. Some will come into force next January; others will come into force much later.
Mr. MacLellan: The provisions without regulations will come in very quickly, but, for those with regulations, the committee will have a chance to look at the regulations before those sections are proclaimed.
The Chair: That has to be, in accordance with the law.
Mr. Breitkreuz: I had one other question.
The Chair: Fine. Put your question. Then we'll have to decide whether we're going to adjourn. I was hoping to dispose of this clause before the vote.
Mr. Breitkreuz: There seems to be an inconsistency here. In clause 28 we made a big point about the province not being allowed to look after the shooting clubs, yet this clause gives the province all the power to regulate in this area.
Why would there be such inconsistency in that regard?
A voice: I don't understand, frankly.
A voice: What clause are you referring to?
Mr. Breitkreuz: Clause 31, which says, ``the firearm is delivered by a person designated by a chief firearms officer'', who is a provincial officer. These things are his responsibility. So in clause 31 you're leaving it in the hands of the province, but not in clause 28.
Mr. MacLellan: This is a responsibility of the province and of the firearms officer. It's an administration matter, something the provinces have been used to doing.
What we were talking about in the other clause is the regulation of the clubs to make sure they correspond with certain provisions of the act. We weren't involved in the administration, just with certain information we felt necessary to have the act complied with.
There are lots of cases in this bill where our minister referring responsibilities to the firearms officer actually has responsibility. That has been done in the past, and, frankly, it's the proper way to do it.
Mr. Breitkreuz: Why wouldn't he have the same responsibility in clause 28? Why do you take it away in one area but leave it with him in the other?
Mr. Mosley: The distinction is quite clearly that in the proposal to amend clause 28 the hon. members were suggesting that the authority to make the actual regulations would be transferred to a provincial minister and then subdelegated to a provincial official.
Here we're talking about the chief firearms officer administering federal regulations made by the federal government, scrutinized by the federal Parliament.
.1720
It's apples and oranges; the two issues are not the same at all.
Clause 31 agreed to on division
The Chair: Before I adjourn, it's pretty obvious that we're not going to finish this bill in its clause-by-clause stage by this evening. At 9 p.m., during the meeting, I was going to interrupt the proceedings to propose further meetings to you to deal with the clause-by-clause consideration. When we decided to proceed with clause-by-clause consideration, it was to start on Monday, go through Monday and Tuesday, and then until the bill was finished, but we didn't set times for the other meetings. I'm going to make some proposals to you at 9 p.m.
The meeting stands adjourned.