[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
Tuesday, December 10, 1996
.0935 
[English]
The Chairman: Ladies and gentlemen, members of the committee, I would like to convene the meeting of the subcommittee looking into the regulations of the Firearms Act.
This is our first meeting with witnesses. It's a pleasure today to have officials from the Department of Justice, including Mr. Rick Mosley.
Welcome, Mr. Mosley. I was wondering if you would introduce your associates, sir.
Mr. Richard G. Mosley (Assistant Deputy Minister, Criminal Policy, Department of Justice): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I would be pleased to.
Perhaps I could first indicate that I'm here in my capacity as an assistant deputy minister of the Department of Justice, but also as project leader for the implementation of Bill C-68 and the regulations.
I'm joined at the table this morning by my colleague Michel Plouffe, who is the senior project manager for the development of the Canadian firearms licensing and registration system. He is situated in the Canadian Firearms Centre, which has been established by the Department of Justice.
Also with me is Mr. William Bartlett, who I think is familiar to many members. He has joined us as counsel in the Canadian Firearms Centre and has been intimately involved with the drafting of the regulations that are before you for review.
If you agree, Mr. Chairman, I would propose to make some opening remarks, and then of course we would be at the disposal of the committee for questions.
The Chairman: We would welcome those opening remarks, Mr. Mosley, from you and your associates. You will give them the remarks you think are pertinent. You may also call other members of your group to the table whenever you want, as well, if any questions arise. If you would, you could begin your remarks, following which members of the committee hopefully will be able to ask you questions.
Mr. Mosley: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
We are pleased to be here today to speak to the eleven sets of proposed firearms regulations that have been referred to you for review. These are the supporting regulations required for the implementation of the enhanced firearms control scheme established by Bill C-68. The regulation-making authority is section 117 of the Firearms Act, and pursuant to section 118 of that act they have been tabled in both houses of Parliament for review by this committee and by the committee in the other chamber.
Bill C-68 received royal assent on December 5, 1995. Since then the Department of Justice, with our federal partners, has conducted extensive consultations with those parties who are involved in the implementation of the new scheme and those groups that will be affected by it. These proposed regulations are the product of those consultations.
After review by this committee and the committee in the other house, changes may be made and the regulations will subsequently be brought into force at the same time as the new legislative scheme is implemented. That implementation, as announced by the Minister of Justice on November 27, will take place early in 1998.
The minister also announced at the time that the licensing and registration components will begin together at the same time. The licensing system will then replace the existing firearms acquisition certificate system. Registration of rifles and shotguns will begin rather sooner than had originally been planned, and owners will be able to license themselves and register their firearms at the same time, making the process more convenient for them.
The proposed regulations now before you cover a wide range of issues. These include the licensing of individuals and businesses; the storage, display, transportation, and handling the firearms by individuals and businesses; authorizations to transport restricted and prohibited firearms and to carry handguns on the person for limited purposes; the adaptation of certain provisions of the act; the regulations for application to aboriginal people who engage in traditional hunting practices; and the fees for firearms documents.
.0940
I will not attempt to describe the content of the proposed regulations in great detail. However, I do wish to briefly discuss some of the highlights of the package, and then we will be pleased, as I indicated earlier, to answer your questions.
With regard to firearms licences, these regulations provide for the detailed eligibility requirements for obtaining different kinds of licences and the procedures for applying for those licences. They deal with both individual and business licences. There are five different kinds for individuals. The first is the standard possession and acquisition licence; the second is the possession only, which is available to current firearms owners; the third is a possession licence for minors; the fourth is a non-resident 60-day borrowing licence, which does not apply to those non-residents who bring in their own firearms, who would go through a different process; and the fifth is the licence to acquire crossbows only.
The possession-only licence for firearms must first be applied for by January 1, 2001, but may be renewed every five years thereafter. I think there's some confusion about that point, and some people in reading the proposed regulations have suggested that it is a cut-off date for people coming into or acquiring new licences in the future. That is not the case.
This will involve a relatively simple application process. The standard possession and acquisition licence may be applied for at any time. The application process for this licence will be more extensive than the one designed for those who intend only to continue to possess the firearms they currently own and will be similar to the existing FAC process.
This process, for example, will involve the notification of current and former spouses, and common-law partners. All businesses, including museums and such associations as legion halls, will require a licence, and the regulations set out the application requirements and other relevant matters.
Respecting storage, display, transportation and handling, the requirements that will apply to individuals are the same as those that apply under the current regulations. There are some additional provisions dealing with prohibited firearms and antiques.
Respecting businesses, the regulations bring together principles now contained in several different sets of existing regulations. The new regulations will establish a comprehensive scheme governing the manner in which all firearms and other regulated items must be safely stored, displayed, transported and handled by businesses.
The new provisions have been developed in consultation with a range of firearms businesses and are designed to be both effective and practical in terms of normal business operations.
Regarding authorizations to transport restricted and prohibited firearms, these regulations add the details required to implement the controls on the movement of certain firearms that are now found in sections 17 to 20 of the Firearms Act. They deal with the issuance, refusal and revocation of authorizations to transport handguns and other restricted firearms, as well as prohibited handguns and long guns. These authorizations will replace the current general carry permits.
The storage, display, transportation and handling regulations will also apply to the manner in which these firearms must be transported.
The current law provides for the granting of permits in limited circumstances that allow the carrying of handguns on the person. The authorized purposes include the protection of life - although such permits are very rarely granted - and the use of handguns in prescribed occupations.
The present law, however, provides no detailed regulatory rules, and these regulations will set out in some detail the circumstances in which authorizations to carry will be issued, refused or revoked.
With respect to the fees regulations, the act provides broad authority to set fees and to waive or reduce them for licences, registrations, authorizations, transfers, the import and export of firearms, and confirmations by customs officers of documents required under the act. Authority is also provided to set charges for the storing or disposal of goods that are detained by customs.
.0945
The proposed schedule would set fees for most but not all of these matters. It would not, for example, impose a fee for the transfer of firearms. Customs storage and disposal charges may be imposed, but have not yet been determined.
The fees are based on two key principles. The first is cost recovery. The revenues from the user fees will be used to offset the recoverable cost components of the firearms program. To assess these costs, an extensive business process engineering study was undertaken to determine the activities and processes necessary to develop the system, and a subsequent activity-based costing exercise was undertaken to cost out those activities. Over time, the revenues from fees will cover program set-up costs, as well as the direct transaction costs.
These processes were worked out with our federal and provincial partners, and work is still under way in reviewing and modifying them.
The second key consideration was matters of policy. There are policy concerns that had to be met in setting the fee structure, in order not to harm the law-abiding firearms owner or business and to promote compliance with the licensing and registration system. For example, it provides for graduated fees for licensing and registration during the implementation period, no fees for authorizations to transport restricted or prohibited firearms, no confirmation fees for customs activities and processing business imports or exports, and no registration fees for businesses or museums.
The highlights of the fees are these, we believe: The possession-only licence is graduated from $10 to $60 in the implementation period; the possession and acquisition licence is $60 for non-restricted firearms, $80 for restricted or prohibited. The current waiver for sustenance hunters, whether aboriginal or non-aboriginal, is retained. With regard to the registration of existing firearms, it's $10 for all firearms owned done at one time, rising to $18 in the last year of implementation. Registration of new firearms acquisitions will be $25.
There are also in the package regulations aimed at adapting the act and the regulations to the needs of aboriginal communities, in order to respect the aboriginal and treaty rights to hunt affirmed by section 35 of the Constitution Act 1982. The existence of this constitutionally protected right to hunt, and the ancillary right to use firearms for the purpose of engaging in traditional hunting practices, means that the legislation must be adapted in certain respects as it applies to aboriginal people who engage in these practices.
It should be noted that not all aboriginal people are covered by these adaptations, but only those who engage in hunting for food or ceremonial purposes. Even these people are not in any way exempt from the legislation; all of the provisions of the act and the regulations still apply, subject only to adaptations that modify the licence application process somewhat to provide for minor differences in such matters as lending and storage.
These regulations do not deal with fees, but the fees regulations would require aboriginal people to pay the same fees as non-aboriginal people. Aboriginal communities will be involved in confirming that individual applicants do indeed participate in the traditional hunting practices of a community with a distinctive aboriginal culture.
That, Mr. Chairman, concludes my remarks. As I indicated, we would be pleased to respond to your questions.
The Chairman: Thank you very much, Mr. Mosley.
We will ask questions, and then before we complete the meeting I wonder if we could have five minutes or so to talk about future business and future meetings. This will be our only meeting this week before the Christmas break. The others will begin on January 27, as agreed by committee members.
[Translation]
Mr. de Savoye, you have ten minutes.
.0950
Mr. de Savoye (Portneuf): Mr. Mosley, you have given us the highlights of the regulations. Could you be more specific and tell us what will change for, for example, a hunter in Quebec? What will be the impact on the licence he already has? When will he have to register his firearms? Basically, what will change in his life?
This is a question that is of interest not only to hunters in Quebec, but to hunters all over the country. However, I'm more interested in those in Quebec because I believe their licences will be recognized under the regulations. I would like you to tell us a little more about the mechanics involved.
[English]
Mr. Mosley: The hunter in Quebec or any province or territory today is required, at the outset of entering into the sport, or to hunt for sustenance purposes, to apply for a firearms acquisition certificate before purchasing or acquiring a firearm.
If that hunter today has a firearm and has no intention of acquiring additional firearms, then he or she need only apply for possession licence and pay the fee. In circumstances in which a valid claim that the hunting is for sustenance purposes can be made, that application is made to the firearms officer and a decision is taken as to whether the fee will be waived or not. But in the normal circumstances where the fee would be paid for a simple possession licence, that has to be done by 2001. At the same time, the hunter can apply to register his firearm or firearms and pay the fee for the registration.
Thereafter, the hunter need only renew. The only difference from the present situation is the hunter must renew the possession licence every five years. If he transfers or sells the firearm that's in his possession, then he'll have to abide by the law and the regulations with respect to the transfer. But if he does nothing else he need only renew his possession licence on a five-year basis.
[Translation]
Mr. de Savoye: When we were discussing the bill, several businesses expressed concerns about regulations that would significantly increase their operation costs. Among other things, they said that there were some excessive conditions, for example, cleaning staff in a business that manufactures, stores or sells firearms having to obtain certain useless qualifications.
What would the difference be for businesses between the regulations that exist today and those that are on the table? What will businesses have to do that is new to comply with the bill and with the regulations? What will be the financial and organizational inconveniences for these businesses?
.0955
[English]
Mr. William Bartlett (Counsel, Canadian Firearms Centre, Department of Justice):Mr. de Savoye, the scope of business under the Firearms Act is broader than it is under the current legislation, so there will be more such businesses that will require licences. The licence fees themselves will start off at their current levels in the first year, or in some cases lower, and will increase by a factor of 25% in subsequent years to account for the increased costs of inspection and supervision that have accrued since the fees were last adjusted.
With regard to employees, employees now require an FAC. Under the Firearms Act, employees who handle firearms will be required to have a licence and a licence to possess restricted firearms, which does involve an additional safety course. However, the licence process will be similar to the FAC process.
On the question of cleaners, the objective of the legislation is to ensure that those who handle firearms in businesses have been screened and trained. There have been accidents and incidents in the past where firearms have been misused or stolen by those with access to them. Cleaners may not normally be thought of as employees of a business that deals with firearms, but if they actually handle the firearms then they have the same access to them that other employees of the business do. So the objective of the act is to ensure that they are screened and satisfy safe handling requirements.
As far as increased costs in general for business, some additional fees are prescribed under the Firearms Act for things like importing and exporting firearms, although they're relatively modest. There will be registration costs that will be borne by the customers and in some cases perhaps by the business. So there will be an incremental increase in the cost to businesses, but not a substantial increase.
Some of the concerns businesses had about the proposed fees have been dealt with. In many cases the proposed fees we discussed with them during consultations have been either significantly reduced or deleted entirely from the fee schedule, so as to ensure that there will not be an undue impact on business.
[Translation]
Mr. de Savoye: I understood that museums will not be subject to the fees for various licences, but it seems to me that museum representatives told us during our hearings on the bill that this was not just an issue of costs, but also of work overload, as they would have to undertake an inventory of all their firearms and provide descriptions so that the arms could be duly registered.
What is the museum situation? You said earlier that you met various stakeholders when you were drawing up the regulations. How did the museums react to the overload of work that firearms registration will entail?
[English]
Mr. Bartlett: There are business licence fees applicable to museums. They're relatively modest - $40 for a three-year licence for small museums with less than 20 firearms, and $60 up to $150 for three years for large museums with 300 or more firearms.
The museums have been consulted several times, both representatives of particular museums and museums associations. They have had concerns, but a number of these concerns have been met. They are generally satisfied with the criteria for identifying museums in the licence regulations.
With regard to registration, the larger museums that have a significant number of firearms have advised us that they keep, for their own purposes, extensive inventories of their firearms with all of the information necessary to register those firearms. Arrangements will be made to have that information transferred in bulk.
.1000
So the registration process for museums should be relatively simple and occasion no great cost. I think the representatives of museums have indicated they are satisfied with the arrangements that are being made to ensure the registration process is not difficult for them.
The Chairman: If we want to hang around later on, we may, Mr. de Savoye.
Mr. de Savoye: Oui.
The Chairman: Mr. Ramsay, ten minutes.
Mr. Ramsay (Crowfoot): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I'd like to welcome our witnesses this morning. There are lots of questions.
First of all, the Minister of Justice stated in the House when the regulations were tabled that three provinces and two territories had opted out and would not administer the licensing and registration portions of Bill C-68. Has the status of these five governments changed since the minister's statement, or have they remained the same?
Mr. Mosley: There was an intervening election in the Government of the Yukon Territory from the time of the announcement made on September 26. Our understanding is they have announced they are going to remain in the administration of the program, although they are also staying in on the court challenge.
Mr. Ramsay: Then what provincial or territorial governments have presently opted out of the administrative requirement today?
Mr. Mosley: To be precise, we have received notice of an intention to withdraw from the administration of the program from Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba and the Northwest Territories.
Mr. Ramsay: In view of that and in view of the minister's statement in the House that the federal Department of Justice would take over these administrative requirements, has the department prepared a plan to do so in those three provinces and the Northwest Territories?
Mr. Mosley: We have been engaged in consultations with our federal partners and will have discussions with the officials from those three provinces and the territory as to transition. The arrangements are by way of an agreement. Under the existing legislation there is the authority to appoint a chief provincial or territorial, as the case may be, firearms officer. That authority is normally exercised by the Attorney General of the province or the territory, as the case may be.
To supplement that, and to actually provide for the administration of the program, we enter into financial agreements with the jurisdiction. Those agreements currently run until March 31, 1997. They can be extended by way of mutual agreement between the parties. That covers the transfer of funds to the provincial or territorial jurisdiction from the federal government for that jurisdiction to operate the office of chief provincial firearms officer and to conduct the related ancillary activities required to administer the program.
If the three provincial governments and the Northwest Territories proceed with their stated intent, we would expect that they will either wait for the expiry of the current contracts or agreements and advise us they do not intend to extend them, or they will agree to an extension until such time as Bill C-68 comes into effect.
We expect that when Bill C-68 comes into effect, the three provincial Attorneys General will choose not to appoint a chief provincial firearms officer, in which case the act provides the authority to the Attorney General of Canada to appoint the chief provincial firearms officer for that jurisdiction. We will enter into agreements with another party, most likely the RCMP, to administer the program within those provinces and that territory.
.1005
Mr. Ramsay: Will you be using RCMP members presently under contract with the provinces to do that, or will you be hiring extra personnel to administer these functions?
Mr. Mosley: That remains to be determined and will be the subject of discussions between the department and the RCMP.
Mr. Ramsay: Are there ongoing discussions with the four governments referred to in order to overcome this impasse, or has the department given up on any possible settlement between the federal government and the four governments?
Mr. Mosley: We certainly have not abandoned the idea that any one or more of those governments may choose to reverse the decision that was announced on September 26. In fact, every communication with them at the level of officials has very much left that door open for any change that may occur, as has happened with the Yukon territory.
There are ongoing discussions with the officials in those jurisdictions about transition, based on the assumption that one or more of the events I referred to earlier will take place - i.e., the appointment of the chief provincial firearms officer in a jurisdiction will be revoked and a new one will not be appointed. In that case, the Attorney General of Canada would have to step in and make that appointment.
Secondly, we will not have agreements with the provinces and territories to continue the administration of the program once Bill C-68 comes into effect.
Mr. Ramsay: Will there be any substantial increase in cost to the federal government to administer these programs?
Mr. Mosley: We can't estimate at this time whether there will be an increase. There is a distinct possibility that the costs for the administration in those jurisdictions will increase as a result of the decision by the provincial governments to withdraw from the administration.
Mr. Ramsay: In his statement, the minister indicated that some or all of the four governments involved are no longer administering the FAC requirements now. Do you have any evidence of that?
Mr. Mosley: If the minister made that statement I'd like to know exactly what was said. To my knowledge, each of those governments is continuing to operate the existing FAC system.
Mr. Ramsay: Do you see any evidence that those four governments are not administering the FAC requirements to date?
Mr. Mosley: We have no information to that effect.
Mr. Ramsay: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'll come back.
The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Ramsay. Ms Whelan.
Ms Whelan (Essex - Windsor): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I have two questions. The first question deals with the liability of someone who's a reference. The Criminal Code presently provides that a person won't incur any civil liability by acting as a reference for an FAC. In the current legislation - the Firearms Act - and the proposed regulations, that protection doesn't seem to be spelled out again. I'm just wondering what the reason for that is.
Mr. Mosley: To my recollection, that question came up when the bill was in committee. We have taken the view that there is no head of liability here. We can't think of circumstances in which someone who has been asked to do no more than assert, to the best of his or her knowledge and belief, that the information on the form.... They are not guaranteeing anything. It's not an endorsement in the sense of putting themselves behind the person's record. They're saying, in effect, ``This information on the form is accurate to the best of our knowledge and belief, and we have no reason to believe this person will be a threat to the safety of anyone else''.
.1010
In most circumstances, it's hard to think of a situation in which there would be a head of liability at civil law for those persons who are signing to that effect.
Ms Whelan: When someone acts as a reference and the reference is followed up by the proper authorities, is it appropriate to ask questions other than those that appear on the application?
Mr. Mosley: Yes.
Ms Whelan: The other question I have is with regard to section 10.(4). What's the rationale behind the 60 days for non-residents?
Mr. Bartlett: That was a policy decision that was made when the act was passed. It is the Firearms Act that provides for the issuance of 60-day licences for the purpose of borrowing. It parallels the 60 days for people who bring their own firearms across. They are authorized to possess firearms when they declare their firearms and the declaration is confirmed. That then serves as both the licence and registration certificate for a period of 60 days.
It was felt that period was sufficient for most of the purposes for which people would want to bring firearms into the country - a temporary period long enough for them to carry out legitimate activities, but not so long as to raise substantial safety concerns.
Ms Whelan: I guess my concern with this section is that hunting and historical re-enactors are lumped together, and they're very dissimilar in what they do and how they perform. I come from a border community that has an historical re-enactment, and that season runs from about the end of April until some time in October. It just doesn't make a lot of sense to me to ask them to pay that type of fee every 60 days when they're volunteers in an historical re-enactment. It's not like hunting, which has a set time. I'm not sure I'm really following the rationale behind it.
Mr. Bartlett: The act does not distinguish between hunters or historical re-enactors or any particular purpose for which people are bringing firearms into Canada. There are a variety of ways, however, in which we are seeking to deal with the concerns of historical re-enactors. For example, we may be able to prescribe most of the reproductions they currently use to be antique firearms. The 60-day fee is a concern they have expressed to us, and it's an issue we're certainly looking at seriously, but we hope to have the system set up to make crossing the border as easy as possible.
Ms Whelan: Thank you.
The Chairman: Mr. DeVillers.
Mr. DeVillers (Simcoe North): I understand there is an addition to the requirements for an application now, where a former spouse would be given notice. I wonder if you could describe the operation of that provision and what authority or rights the former spouse receiving the notice would have in dealing with that person's application.
Mr. Bartlett: The licence regulations require that when somebody applies for an acquisition licence - just that particular kind of licence - because firearms may be entering the home for the first time, before the licence is issued a notification must be given to the current or former spouse. Former is defined as someone the applicant has lived with within the previous two years.
The reason for that is that domestic violence data indicates it is at the point of separation and in the period immediately thereafter that there is the greatest risk of violence. The purpose of the notification is simply to ensure that the spouse or common-law partner, current or former, is aware that the application is being made, so he or she can voice any concerns about his or her own safety or that of other family members, or of anyone, for that matter.
.1015
The issue is not one of consent. Under the Firearms Act, the basis for refusal of a licence is safety concern, a concern that the applicant represents a risk to himself or herself or to someone else's safety. It's not a question of consent. Rather, it is a question of whether or not the spouse has information that would be extremely relevant to making that basic safety decision.
Mr. DeVillers: To whom would the spouse or former spouse take that information?
Mr. Bartlett: There are a variety of places to which they can take that information. Obviously they could take the information to a firearms officer or to the police, who could pass it on. We will be preparing information and communications packages to indicate to spouses and to other people who may be brought into the licence process where to make those kinds of concerns known. There will be, for example, a 1-800 information line they could have access to, where they can find out how to make sure their concerns get to the right people.
Mr. DeVillers: So that information would be assessed and would form part of the overall decision as to whether the licence should be issued.
Mr. Bartlett: Yes. In most cases it will be assessed by trained police officers. The same people who now run the firearms acquisition certificate system will conduct investigations in cases where that kind of information comes to light and will make a judgment as to whether or not the information is substantial enough to raise a safety concern that indicates a licence should be refused.
Mr. DeVillers: The system is set up, then, so that frivolous concerns would be vetted out.
Mr. Bartlett: Yes. There has been a lot of concern that there will be frivolous concerns or that information may be given for reasons of malice, particularly in the case of estranged spouses. The police officers who will be assessing the information have, as part of their normal working lives, the experience in the need to assess information, to determine when it's credible information, and to check it against other sources to confirm it. These people should be quite well qualified to make that kind of judgment.
Mr. DeVillers: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman: Thank you.
As I think you have detected, the half-hour bell is ringing for the vote. The vote will be held at approximately 10:40, so we'll have another round for Mr. de Savoye
[Translation]
or Ms Venne, and we will then adjourn for a vote, if possible.
Ms Venne.
Ms Venne (Saint-Hubert): Good day, gentlemen.
To follow up on Mr. Ramsay's question, I would like you to tell us if that is when the Minister said he would be in charge of administering the Firearms Act in the uncooperative provinces if that was not carried out by the RCMP. Is it not the RCMP that is in charge of firearms control in these provinces anyway?
[English]
Mr. Mosley: The RCMP certainly is currently now very much involved in the administration of the firearms program because they run the current firearms registration system for restricted firearms - it's based here in Ottawa - and because, more directly, at the field level within the three prairie provinces and the Northwest Territories, the RCMP is the police force in most of the communities other than the larger urban centres, which, for the most part, have their own municipal police forces. Members of the RCMP provide policing services in the rural communities and in many of the municipalities. They are the firearms officers most Canadians resident in those provinces and that territory come into contact with on a regular basis. They are doing much of that work at present. They are doing it under contract with the provinces, which provides for a proportion of the cost to be borne by the province or territory and a portion to be borne by the federal government.
.1020
There is a question as to how much of this work falls on the provincial dollar and how much of it falls on the federal dollar. We expect that as a result of the decision taken in those three provinces, the resources that are currently going to the three provincial governments and the territorial government will flow to the RCMP.
Other models could be employed. We could contract with a non-police agency to do much of this work, but some of it has to be done by law enforcement personnel. If, for example, there is a need for the secondary screening of an individual applicant, that work is best done by peace officers, and in most of the western provinces and the Northwest Territories that means the RCMP.
We think this new system will involve much less work by police officers at the front end. At present, for example, they have to receive the application for a firearms acquisition certificate and they process it. There's a lot of manual work involved in making sure all of the information on the form is filled in properly. Then they have to process the application and send it in to the provincial or territorial capital where it's finalized. The certificate comes back to the local detachment or station.
Most of that work will now be done at a central site, which means it will not involve a police officer at the front end. There will still be a need for their involvement where there is a requirement for further screening of the individual, and there may be other activities in relation to the overall administration of the program.
[Translation]
Ms Venne: Under the current firearms legislation, agreements will be entered into with provinces with respect to the fees and administration costs that the federal government will reimburse them for.
I would like to know what stage these agreements have reached, if they have been signed and if so, if they are public. Can you give us the content of those agreements?
[English]
Mr. Mosley: Agreements have been entered into, signed with each jurisdiction, since 1978. At present, most of the agreements.... Under the new law, no - none of the agreements have been drawn up under the new law with any of the jurisdictions. We've received notice of intent to renegotiate from several jurisdictions, and that process has begun.
There are ongoing discussions with the provinces and the territories. We've had a high degree of involvement by provincial and territorial officials in the planning for the implementation of Bill C-68. They have indicated that the preference of those jurisdictions is to wait until we're mutually satisfied that the planning work has been completed to the stage where they know and we know exactly what the cost picture might be before we finalize those agreements.
That's an ongoing process. We have meetings with them on a regular basis. They come to Ottawa and we sit down with them. They're very much part of the ongoing efforts to design the new system and put it into place.
.1025
[Translation]
Ms Venne: Under the former legislation, how much did you reimburse in Quebec for administering firearms control?
[English]
Mr. Mosley: We can't tell you. We don't have that information with us here today, but it is available and we can provide it to the clerk of the committee for distribution to all members of the committee.
[Translation]
Ms Venne: In conclusion, I would like to mention that I considered the regulations that you have provided us with and I compared them with those of last May. I must admit that, besides the splitting up of the regulations, I did not really see any very significant differences. I wonder if your goal was not simply to delay applying legislation and the regulations so that implementation would only occur after January 1998. I imagine that you won't want to comment on that.
That was my comment. I really think that the difference between the two sets of draft regulations is minute.
[English]
Mr. Bartlett: Madame Venne, there are five new sets of regulations in this package that weren't there in the spring. They deal with import-export, transfer, records, aboriginal adaptations and fees, the last two being very major topics.
There have been substantial changes and additions to the licence regulations and some changes to the storage and display for businesses. Very substantial changes have been made since that package was tabled, and those changes have been made after consultations that went on continuously over the summer.
I think there were several consultations a week, every couple of weeks, right through the summer. Based on those consultations, changes were made to the package that was originally tabled in the spring and those five additional sets were developed.
[Translation]
Ms Venne: Mr. Bartlett, you know as well as I do that these are essentially the same regulations except that now they have been split up into various categories whereas before there were not separate regulations for businesses. Businesses and individuals were lumped together.
The wheel was not just invented. These points already exist in the regulations and they were split up. I'm sorry, but businesses were simply included with individuals. Now there are separate regulations for businesses. I personally don't think the picture has changed much.
[English]
Mr. Bartlett: The only condition -
The Chairman: I'm afraid we have to leave to vote now.
Mr. Bartlett will be able to give a response to that when we come back. Then we'll move on to a government questioner, then to Mr. Ramsay, and we'll continue with this.
I would like to adjourn now until after the vote. I apologize to the witnesses. We hope that all of you will be able to stay until we return.
Thank you very much.
.1027
.1106
The Chairman: We'll recommence. When we suspended the sitting for the vote, Mr. Bartlett was going to reply to Madam Venne's question about the differences between the regulations in this draft and those of the previous one, presented in May.
Mr. Bartlett, if you could, please.
Mr. Bartlett: Madam Venne is quite right that the storage, display, and transportation regulations have been split into one set dealing with individuals and another set dealing with businesses. They're not brand new. I didn't mean to suggest that. What I did say was there were some changes to the provisions that dealt with businesses. However, five additional sets of regulations, brand new, deal with matters that were not dealt with at all in the May package. In addition, significant amendments have been made to the licence regulations, which were part of the spring package.
Perhaps what I can do is undertake to provide to your researchers a copy of this package, annotated as to what is exactly the same as it was in that May 2 package, which sections have been significantly amended and which portions are brand new.
The Chairman: That would be very helpful. Thank you. We will look forward to getting those.
Mr. Maloney.
Mr. Maloney (Erie): My colleague mentioned the problem with the licences for re-enactors and the envelope of use in any one given year as opposed to an envelope of use by hunters as being perhaps substantially different. We have a thirty-day period running. We're discussing it; we're talking about it. When would you anticipate some further direction will come on that very point?
Mr. Mosley: I'm sorry, I don't follow the question, sir. Is there a connection between the thirty sitting days and the issue about re-enactors?
Mr. Maloney: My concern is whether this issue is going to be clarified or further direction is going to given within that 30-day period before these regulations are in effect.
Mr. Mosley: I'm sure the Minister of Justice will be pleased to receive any recommendations this committee may wish to advance on that issue or any other issues you identify as concerns during this process.
We can provide one additional piece of information, and it may assist in the question that was raised by Ms Whelan. There is, I believe, a renewal clause that would permit someone who has a 60-day permit to renew without further cost for an additional 60 days; so it gives them in effect 120 days at the same price. I think that goes a long way towards addressing the concerns of those who may be coming up over the course of the summer, for example, on a regular basis to one or more locales in Canada.
Mr. Maloney: The system of cost recovery - do you feel that these fees that have been set will achieve that end? There was a big discrepancy between what the minister thought the cost of the gun registration system would be and what the opponents thought it would be. Are we still on target with what the minister thought it would be, or have these changed?
Mr. Mosley: We're still on target. We never really did understand where those numbers came from, although I believe there was some attempt to take information that came from one source and to extrapolate it to the entire program, not taking into account the differences in the way this program will be delivered.
.1110
The very high estimates we saw in media reports were not based on any solid foundation we were aware of and certainly bore no core relation to the estimates that were made internally within government and then presented to Parliament in the spring of last year.
We think we're still on target. There are some areas where there have been changes in circumstances since last year, particularly in the screening process. One aspect of that is spousal notification. That wasn't part of the original plan but it has very much come to the fore as a result of intervening events, for example the Vernon incident in British Columbia. That was one of the recommendations the inquest jury made. It was slightly different the way they presented it, but essentially they were very concerned that spouses, partners, current and recent, be involved in the process of the application for a licence because very often they are aware of circumstances that may suggest the applicant is not a good candidate for a licence to acquire firearms.
That very much came out in our consultations with interested groups. They thought there was a need to build that into the process. It was not part of our original planning. Accordingly, it wasn't part of our cost projections for the system - start-up or administration of the system. Accordingly, it's likely to be an additional cost element.
At this point it's not entirely clear how much that will be. We have to get a better sense of what the experience is. For example, at this point we can only guess at how many applicants will actually have the spouse or partner sign on the application, how many will require actual notification. So uncertainties about some of the cost elements may affect the ultimate level of cost. We spoke earlier about opting out on the part of some of the jurisdictions. At this point we really can't get a handle on what additional costs there may be. There may be some savings in some areas which will reduce elements of the overall package.
Mr. Maloney: I'm from Ontario, and a year ago at this time we had a tremendous influx of renewals of FACs. The common complaint in my area still is that they haven't received these renewals back. Are there sufficient resources in your agreements with the provinces to take this factor into account? The concern is whether this is a low priority in the firearms office in the province.
Even if there are sufficient resources, is there any way emphasis could be put on the provincial firearms officer to expedite applications in a situation such as this one? I don't know whether this could happen again or whether it's a one-time instance, but it still is a problem right now. I'm concerned whether something similar could arise in future.
Mr. Mosley: I think that was a one-time situation which resulted from a decision made by the provincial government to take advantage of a window of opportunity to grandfather persons who had taken hunter safety training courses to waive the requirement that they would otherwise have to take the Canadian firearm safety course. So all of a sudden there was a huge demand.
The financial agreements include a component that is a block amount for the operation of the CPFO office, but they also include amounts that are tied to the number of transactions. As the number of transactions expands, the total amount of money payable to the province will also expand. In that particular situation the result was that the amount owing to the province increased significantly because the volume increased significantly.
.1115
By the same token, I understand the province did respond by putting in additional provincial resources in order to meet the backlog. The payments to the province would follow only upon a claim being made once they have the final picture for how many applications were actually made during that period. Then the calculations are done and there will be payment.
I think what they did was to beef up the staff in that office by at least five additional people. That number rings a bell. I'm not entirely sure of the number in that particular case.
The Chairman: Mr. Ramsay.
Mr. Ramsay: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Mosley, can we anticipate further regulations being tabled on the registration of firearms itself? These regulations which have been tabled deal primarily with licensing. Will further regulations be tabled to deal with registration of the long guns?
Mr. Mosley: I'll ask Mr. Bartlett to speak on that.
Mr. Bartlett: Mr. Ramsay, additional sets of regulations are currently being developed to deal with, among other things, registration certificates, import and export by individuals, and shooting clubs and ranges. We have completed a study on firearms uniqueness. We're currently consulting on the findings of that study, which will form the basis for the development of regulations on registration of long guns.
Mr. Ramsay: I gather from Mr. Mosley's earlier statement that the licensing and registration would begin at the same time and it is hoped it would be forthcoming before January 1998. Is that right?
Mr. Bartlett: That is correct.
Mr. Ramsay: I was able to find no definition of ``sustenance hunter'' within the regulations. What is a sustenance hunter?
Mr. Bartlett: The fees regulations use the same wording you will find in I believe section 106(12) of the Criminal Code now for the waiver of fees for FACs for sustenance hunters. It refers to those who require firearms to hunt or trap in order to sustain themselves or their families. There has been significant experience in all jurisdictions with the issuance of FACs to persons who come within that description. We are working to amplify the understanding of how to identify these people. We're going to produce guidelines and standards all the jurisdictions can agree to, perhaps to make the application more consistent than it is now. But there is a body of experience on what those words mean under the current law.
Mr. Ramsay: Then would a hunter who takes out a moose licence each fall and shoots a moose and puts it in his refrigerator and consumes it.... According to what you have said, and my understanding of it, it would not include that individual as a sustenance hunter.
Mr. Bartlett: I would think not. The scope is not simply those who consume what they hunt but those who require firearms in order to sustain themselves or their families. So it's not only in circumstances where they are eating what they kill but in circumstances where absent that source of food they would not be in a position to provide for themselves.
Mr. Ramsay: I have one other question. It has to do with the fees. If a Canadian moves to and fro across the border to participate in either shooting events or sporting events, will he have to pay the fee each time he crosses the border?
.1120
Mr. Bartlett: No. The regulations provide that any fee which might otherwise be applicable when someone who has paid a fee at some point...for any subsequent crossings within the succeeding 60 days the fee is waived. In addition, if the confirmed declaration is renewed for a further 60 days by a chief firearms officer within the following 60 days, again the fees would be waived.
The Chairman: Ms Whelan.
Ms Whelan: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I wanted to pick up on something I believe Mr. Mosley mentioned, cost recovery. My understanding of cost recovery in the different departments in Treasury Board guidelines is that you're supposed to weigh the public versus private good. Has that been taken into account in these regulations?
Mr. Mosley: Very much so.
Ms Whelan: Then I'll again raise my issue of historical re-enactors. I understand the renewal fee, but the season is six months, so they're still going to be subject to an additional fee.
On the private good versus the public good, we've asked our national historic parks to become cost-effective. One of the ways they do this is by attracting people to them for different events. An event that has become extremely popular is historical re-enactment. To enhance that, they've been able to encourage people to cross the borders. The public good far outweighs the private good. It's not similar - and I state that again for the record - to hunting. The individuals who come across the border to participate have a time constraint, have a number of things they have to go through; there are a number of hoops we're now going to put them through to participate. We are trying to encourage our historical parks to be cost-effective and to encourage them to have these displays. This is one area they have been able to encourage people to come and pay a fee to watch.
I'm going to ask the department again to take a look at the public versus private good when it comes to historical re-enactment, because I think it's very different from hunting and shooting matches.
Mr. Mosley: We'll certainly take another look at that and discuss it with our colleagues in the departments most directly concerned with these activities and bring the matter to the attention of the Minister of Justice.
The Chairman: Mr. de Savoye.
[Translation]
Mr. de Savoye: I will make a few comments and then I have a question to ask.
First, I would like to congratulate the clerk on having taken the initiative to write the numbers on the regulation pages. That was an excellent initiative. At the same time, I regret that the department did not think of doing that.
Second, I notice this morning that a list of department officials testifying was provided as well as those who are at the back, but I also noted that this list was only provided in the language of Shakespeare.
I realize that there are witnesses who do not have translation resources and who are not able to provide us a document in both official languages, but I certainly would have expected more from the Justice Department. I am sure that this is the last time I will have to make this type of comment.
Now, I would like to talk to you about the firearm-registry and of the registry for permit holders. When the bill came before the House, there were concerns about implementing these information systems.
I would like to know if you can now tell us precisely, or more or less precisely, what the cost will be, how long it will take to set up these information systems and when they will start operating. I imagine this will be at the beginning of 1998. Furthermore, will the registration fees cover the cost of operating these systems? Could you answer those questions?
.1125
Mr. Mosley: I accept Mr. de Savoye's comments. It is unforgivable that we provided a list in one language only.
[English]
With regard to the costs, we of course stand by the estimates that were presented to Parliament by the Minister of Justice. The actual cost of running the system on a year-to-year basis, once it is set up, will depend on a number of factors - in particular what we call the take-up rate. We won't know what the cost in 1998-99 will be until we know how many people have come forward, because much of the cost in running the system relates to the processing of the individual applications.
Mr. de Savoye: From what you're saying, I take it that the cost of running the system will not be compensated for by the fee the people will be paying for it.
Mr. Mosley: No. To the contrary, we expect the cost of running the system will be covered by the fees that are paid. It may take some time for the revenue generated by the fees to totally cover the costs. It's not likely to be on a year-by-year basis. It may take some years before those costs are covered by the revenue. The start-up costs will take some time to cover. We expect that the computer systems will be in place early in 1998 to deliver the program.
Mr. de Savoye: What will the development of the system cost?
Mr. Mosley: The Minister of Justice indicated last year that the cost for start-up design and construction of the system would be $85 million.
[Translation]
Mr. de Savoye: You said that the operation costs would eventually be offset by the fees.
[English]
Mr. Mosley: We expect that all of the costs, including those relating to export and import, will ultimately be covered by the fee revenue.
[Translation]
Mr. de Savoye: When will you begin developing the system?
[English]
Mr. Mosley: We've been working on it since last December. As I indicated in my opening remarks, we spent an enormous amount of time on what is called business process engineering, to describe in fine detail all of the steps required to do each of the functions required under the act. By our estimate, we have put some 25,000 person-hours into that work to ensure we have a solid basis for the next stages of the process, which include tendering for contracts with the private sector to actually build the new systems we require.
We have people on staff who have been working on this for the past year. We've brought in people from the provinces and the municipalities to work with them on the design teams. I think that process has put us in the very good position to move to the next stage, which is tendering of the contracts.
[Translation]
Mr. de Savoye: Thank you.
The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. de Savoye.
[English]
Mr. Maloney.
Mr. Maloney: Fifteen of the regulations provide for revocation of a licence if an individual is involved in an act of domestic violence. How would you define an act of domestic violence? Would it be the finding of guilt on a criminal charge, a laying of an information or charge, an incident report to the police, or a statement from the spouse? How will that be addressed?
.1130
Mr. Bartlett: All of the things you've described would be evidence, perhaps, that an act of domestic violence had taken place. The concern is with whether or not an act of domestic violence has taken place, not with whether or not a charge has been laid or there has been a conviction. We're not looking for that kind of process or that level of evidence. We're simply looking for sufficient credible information that an act of violence has taken place.
In this context, the term's meaning is intended to be given a fairly broad scope, because it's not an automatic trigger for revocation; it's simply an instruction to the chief firearms officer to consider revoking. So the term would be given a reasonably broad meaning. There are fairly well understood lexicons of what the words ``domestic violence'' would encompass. The intent is to give it a fairly broad meaning because the chief firearms officer assesses the information, and if the information proves to be credible, he or she may then move to revocation. But the act itself is simply a trigger for that consideration.
Mr. Maloney: Would it be an interim revocation, a temporary suspension or a long-term suspension?
Mr. Bartlett: There is no process in the act for suspensions or interim revocations, so the action would be a complete revocation of the licence. That being the case, the firearms officer would be very careful about the circumstances in which a revocation took place, and there is a right of appeal if there is a revocation.
Mr. Maloney: What happens when a revocation does take place but the act is found to be unsubstantiated? What would you do?
Mr. Bartlett: If further information showed that the basis for the revocation was not sound, a new licence could certainly be issued, and presumably without a fee. The intent is certainly not to insist upon an action that's been taken wrongly if the subsequent information shows the basis wasn't there.
Mr. Maloney: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Maloney. Mr. Ramsay.
Mr. Ramsay: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I would like to know if the governments of the three provinces and the Northwest Territories that have opted out of portions of this bill have indicated to the Department of Justice exactly what they're refusing to do. Are these governments refusing to administer just the licensing and registration portion of the bill, or are they also refusing to enforce the parts of Bill C-68 dealing with the lack of compliance to the licensing and registration requirements?
Mr. Mosley: I think perhaps the easiest way to respond to that question would be to make available to the clerk, for distribution to the members of the committee, the correspondence that was received from the three provinces and the territory that was made public at the time. There was a press release. Alberta, for example, released both the letter and a backgrounder that described what it meant by the terms of the correspondence. That may be the easiest way to deal with that.
Mr. Ramsay: I would welcome that, and I'm sure the committee would as well. Is the department clear as to the intent of these four governments? Do you know what you and the justice department will have to do to fulfil the requirements that are not being fulfilled by the four governments that have opted out?
Mr. Mosley: I think we're clear on it. We had some subsequent discussions with the provincial officials concerned as to what was meant by the language in the correspondence. I think we have a very good idea of what's meant by this.
I should perhaps note that I think the Province of Alberta has wanted to get out of the administration of the program for some time, and sees it as essentially a federal program that it has a minor role of administering. That has been subject of some discussion even before Bill C-68 was enacted.
.1135
With regard to the other provinces, I don't think it was an issue one way or the other, but what they're talking about.... It's essentially the CPFO, which currently consists of a relatively small office in each of those jurisdictions, situated within one of the provincial ministries, usually in the Attorney General's ministry or justice ministry. Those offices process the FAC applications and do a number of other functions that relate to the responsibilities of that officer.
Much of the real work is done at the local level by the person in the detachment office who receives the application and deals on a regular basis with the citizens who bring it forward. The offices of the CPFO are administrative. They do have some discretion to exercise and they offer guidance to the firearms officers operating within that particular bailiwick.
But we have a very good understanding of what the CPFO does. We set up the system currently used for the administration of the firearms acquisition certificates following the C-17 legislation in the previous Parliament, and we've had ongoing discussions with them on a regular basis. There is a committee of CPFOs we meet with periodically so we understand the functions they perform. In the last year it has been a very intensive process with them. That has been also part of the business process engineering exercise, so we've gone through it in exhaustive detail.
I think we have a very good understanding of what we will need to do to carry on the administration of the program. The business lines are essentially the same: licensing, which is an extension of the firearms acquisition certificate, and registration, which is an extension of the existing registration system for restricted weapons. We propose to go about it in a different way.
Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Chairman, I have one final question, if I have time.
The Chairman: Yes.
Mr. Ramsay: Is there any indication from these four governments that they are unwilling to administer the provisions dealing with the lack of compliance to the licensing and registration requirements of the act?
Mr. Mosley: I believe the correspondence from the three governments indicates that they will not enforce the provisions of the Firearms Act. If you want the exact language for that, I think you'd have to refer to each of their letters, but that's my understanding.
Mr. Ramsay: Thank you.
The Chairman: Mr. Ramsay, do you feel that Mr. Mosley's offer to provide that information would be helpful?
Mr. Ramsay: Yes.
The Chairman: Mr. Mosley, have you undertaken to provide that?
Mr. Mosley: Yes.
The Chairman: Thank you.
Mr. de Savoye,
[Translation]
any other questions?
Mr. de Savoye: I do not have any other questions at this time. However, Mr. Chairman, once we will have heard other witnesses involved in one aspect or another of the regulations, it would no doubt be useful to visit with the department officials again in order to obtain specific information on ways of dealing with problems that may have been pointed out.
The Chairman: Mr. de Savoye, I think that is a good idea. Perhaps the department officials will be available after the Christmas recess for another meeting.
[English]
We will be hearing from him in further hearings in January, and we'd appreciate it if you could be available at some point if we feel that we have to consult with you again before we wrap up our hearings.
Are there any further questions from any of the members? Mr. Maloney.
.1140
Mr. Maloney: Under the section called ``conditions of transferring firearms and other weapons regulations'', clause 3 says that before authorizing a transfer a firearms officer ``must determine that it would not be contrary'' to a transferee's safety or that of another person to transfer that firearm. What would he consider under that clause?
Mr. Bartlett: The general intent is that he'd probably do just a quick CPIC check. It's really just a matter of bringing in that kind of basic database information to bring the person's history up to date and to ensure that there haven't been convictions or charges that show up on the system since the issuance of the licence.
Mr. Maloney: Getting back to the domestic violence, would there be any possible safeguards that he might consider in that respect in cases where someone might not yet be on CPIC for an incident?
Mr. Bartlett: There will also be databases that we will be both enhancing and setting up to bring local information into central databases that would be available for this purpose.
One of the things that we will be looking for in that kind of local information is occurrence reports of domestic violence.
Mr. Maloney: It brings me to another question about the integrity of the system that this information would go into. What are the safeguards so that not just anyone can pick up on this information?
Mr. Bartlett: Perhaps I could ask Mr. Plouffe to answer that.
Mr. Michel Plouffe (Senior Project Manager, Canadian Firearms Centre, Department of Justice): The overall technical environment that we will be using is fully consistent and is in fact part of the CPIC environment. We are effectively using their technology, which has already been proven secure. We will be operating within that total technical framework in the delivery of the program.
Mr. Maloney: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman: Ms Whelan.
Ms Whelan: I want to ask two questions about clause 15 in part one with regard to domestic violence.
Is the revocation going to be kept confidential?
Mr. Bartlett: The fact of a revocation is personal information. I presume that if the licence holder didn't put it in issue by launching an appeal, the fact that they hold a licence and that licence has been revoked certainly isn't going to be made public. It's something that would be on the system for those who administer and enforce the system, and if it is a question of checking to see if the person had a licence, the fact of the revocation would certainly show up, but only to those who have access to the system in order to deal with licences and otherwise administer or enforce the system.
Ms Whelan: If the same person appeals to a provincial court judge, is that going to be confidential? Or is that going to be public?
Mr. Bartlett: An appeal to a court would be on the court record and would be public in that sense.
Ms Whelan: There are instances when we protect certain information from being publicized until it's proven. And this is one instance where in my opinion an act of domestic violence is not clearly defined, nor is it clearly identified as to how you're going to prove it, and yet someone's going to be found guilty before they've been charged. What happens to ``innocent until proven guilty''?
Mr. Bartlett: We're not going to find anyone guilty of domestic violence. We're going to investigate to see whether there is credible information that domestic violence has taken place and then make a determination as to whether or not the person may represent a safety risk and should have his licence revoked.
The standard is quite different. We're looking at giving someone the benefit of the doubt, if there is one, with respect to public safety while at the same time ensuring that there is due process and that the person who holds the licence isn't prejudiced by false information.
As well, there would be safeguards within the system on the sort of information you're talking about, which then leads to it.... The fact of a revocation would be available on the system, but the information upon which the revocation was based would be much more closely held by the chief firearms officer who made that decision.
.1145
If the person appeals the revocation, then information as to the basis upon which the firearms officer acted, evidence, would have to be led in court and the judge would make a determination as to whether or not there appeared to have been sufficient information for the revocation to have been a proper or reasonable action for the chief firearms officer to take.
Ms Whelan: I'm having some difficulty with it because I'm not sure I'm comfortable with the wording as it is. I understand the merits of it and the rationale behind it. I don't disagree that there needs to be some action taken if these incidents are proven, but at the same time I recognize what happens today in the media, what happens to reputations, what happens to individuals.
My legal training tells me that the appeal process really isn't a confidential appeal process, or isn't an appeal process to someone who feels they've been wronged, because all types of implications are going to be brought out in public by appealing. There are incidents where you clearly set guidelines right now for protecting people and information from being publicized, and it's not up to the judge. I'm asking, is there any consideration for that?
Mr. Mosley: I wonder if I might interject at this point. I think the issue is essentially one of a publication ban on the information that's presented to a court. That is a subject that has a whole range of other issues and is not something we could deal with through the regulations. The question of whether there could be a ban on the publication of information presented to a provincial court on an appeal of a decision like this is something I think would have to be addressed through the statute itself.
There is a review of publication bans under way. There was a discussion at a federal-provincial conference this past August. But that is an issue that opens up a whole range of other concerns that I don't really think we can deal with under these regulations. If we were to do anything about the provincial court proceedings, I think it would have to be done through the statute, not the regulations.
Ms Whelan: I understand that, but I'm suggesting that the way it's worded in the regulation, I'm just not comfortable it's clear or that there's not too much subjectivity to the application of it. I'm assuming you've gone over different wording and had many discussions, but -
Mr. Mosley: We wrestled with this one in the consultations with groups to try to come up with a concept that would work. If there's a better way to express it, then of course we'd be pleased to hear what the committee might recommend in that regard.
Mr. Bartlett: Perhaps I might add that the words ``an act of domestic violence'' again are simply the trigger for the chief firearms officer to consider revocation. The kind of evidence and information that would be required to actually revoke a licence wouldn't change. That's a certain level of information - it has to be credible information - that the firearms officer would need in order to revoke a licence.
The question of whether or not an act of domestic violence took place is given a fairly broad intent, not because it's intended that revocation would follow automatically but so that consideration of revocation would take place. But the information that would be needed, then, to actually lead to a revocation would be the same as would be required in any other circumstances where revocation was considered.
Ms Whelan: I'm not disputing the merits of the reason for revocation, if there's an act of domestic violence. I recognize that not all acts of domestic violence go through the court system. I realize that's the real problem. I'm just not sure that I'm comfortable with the subjectivity of the application.
Mr. Bartlett: That's a judgment that the firearms officer has to make whenever that kind of information comes to his or her attention. It will be the subject of supervision by the courts through the appeal process. In addition, there will be guidelines and standards developed through the process of the ongoing negotiations and discussions with the chief firearms officers as to how to administer and enforce the act. That will certainly be one of the areas where we'll be looking at developing guidelines to assist them in carrying out those duties.
.1150
Ms Whelan: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[Translation]
The Chairman: Mr. de Savoye.
Mr. de Savoye: I understand the question that my colleague has just raised. As soon as there is any discretion or subjectivity on the part of the officer responsible for applying or not applying a rule, there is room for almost anything.
Let us take the example of domestic violence that may not have been detected at first by an officer. I can see a few members rising in the House and, justifiably so, condemning this deplorable situation. However, that will send a signal to all the officers out in the field to tighten up their subjective criteria for applying the standards and, consequently, we will have to expect all kinds of reactions depending on where in the country this occurs. In the end, it may be the appeal courts that will end up providing jurisprudence.
Is that the right way to go? Should we not, rather, provide a better framework within the regulations for the criteria that we think are appropriate?
My colleague's concerns are worth other witnesses talking to us about this and the department attempting to put this all together in a way that can be administered consistently throughout the country.
[English]
The Chairman: Before you answer, Mr. Mosley, my understanding is, as Ms Whelan has said, it's not a question of innocence or guilt and the question of family violence. There are questions of preponderance of information that would lead one to believe whether this is a suitable person for a firearm. Is that correct, that there is a distinction?
Mr. Bartlett: That's correct.
Mr. Mosley: The actual criteria are set out in the act in clause 5. But this is meant to signal that it's a high-risk area. Tragic experience or recent history has shown that more of an effort should be made, where there is a suggestion or an allegation that there has been a history of domestic violence, to inquire into the circumstances. It's intended to require a proactive response from the firearms officer so that they don't let the thing pass without being put on inquiry. It doesn't mean that at the end of the day that is going to be sufficient to deny a licence or to revoke the licence, but it initiates a further process.
In response to Mr. de Savoye's comments, we would be pleased to hear what other witnesses before the committee may have to say about this. We would certainly take a hard look at whether any of those suggestions would be workable from a practical perspective and consult once again our partners in this exercise, including the provincial chief firearms officers, who have a very big stake in how that language is finalized because they'll have to administer that particular requirement.
The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Mosley.
Mr. Maloney, did you have a question?
Mr. Maloney: The regulations provide for an increase in fees and new fees in relation to people in the business of firearms. Were they involved in the consultation group? Were they content with these fees? Were they appropriate? Is there any study on how it might impact their businesses, or will they be able to pass the increased fees on to the cost of a firearm?
Mr. Mosley: There were consultations with business groups, including those who are directly involved in the manufacture, distribution and sale of firearms and those involved in film, theatrical, movie suppliers, the museums, as was mentioned earlier. All these groups were consulted on the fees before they were finalized.
.1155
A consultation document was circulated in advance of these discussions. They were given an opportunity to respond with their views on what was being proposed at that time.
Mr. Maloney: Are they content with that fee structure? Will it impact on their business? Or did they comment?
Mr. Mosley: I think they are more content with it now than they were when they saw the first proposals. I'm sure they would be even more content if there were no fees for their activities, because it's a cost of doing business. But to the extent that we're aware of their views, I think they are happier now than they were at the outset.
Mr. Maloney: Is it a reasonable compromise compared with what was originally proposed?
Mr. Mosley: We think so.
The Chairman: Mr. Ramsay.
Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Mosley, I wonder if you could tell the committee what the present status is of the federal-provincial-territorial financial agreements across the country, and in particular with the four governments that are opting out of the act, the three prairie provinces and the Northwest Territories - what the present status is of the financial agreements dealing with the firearms question.
Mr. Mosley: Do you want me to go province by province? I can tell you exactly what the situation is with each.
We have signed agreements with Newfoundland, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island, New Brunswick, Ontario, Manitoba, and Saskatchewan. We're awaiting signature by Quebec and British Columbia on the current agreement, although we understand that's just a formality. Their internal processes take more time, but those agreements will be finalized and signed shortly. We've reached agreement on the terms.
That's for the current financial agreements with the provinces. Then of course we have to begin the cycle again with Bill C-68. We expect for all these jurisdictions the agreements will be extended. The current agreements will be extended to cover the period between March 31, 1997 and when Bill C-68 comes into effect.
I should have mentioned also that the NWT has signed, the Yukon has signed. I think that includes everyone.
Mr. Ramsay: I have one other question.
Under subsection 5.(2) of the act it states that the chief firearms officer of a province, or in the case of a reference under section 74 a provincial court judge, ``shall have regard to whether the person'' - and this has to do with licensing, whether the applicant, the person - ``within the previous five years''...and it mentions the requirements they shall have regard to. The first, of course, is paragraph (a), the criminal record check. Those checks are there; they are listed.
I would like to focus on paragraph (b). The chief firearms officer has to have regard to whether or not the applicant ``has been treated for a mental illness, whether in a hospital, a 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''.
Is there anything within the regulations that have been tabled so far that would give the chief firearms officer directions or authorities to fulfil that requirement?
.1200
Mr. Bartlett: Mr. Ramsay, there's nothing in the regulations per se. The information concerning mental illness is obviously something that in some cases is going to be difficult to get at, because principles of medical confidentiality will protect much of it. Where the fact of the illness and its association with violence have come to the attention of the authorities, which does occur relatively frequently, the police are called in circumstances of suicide, threatened suicide, or other circumstances where very often the police are the ones who refer the person for psychiatric treatment.
So there may be ways in which the information will be available in the system. But there's certainly nothing in either the act or the regulations that would step in and attempt to force open the principles of medical confidentiality which exist in provincial law or provincial common law court decisions. It will simply be a matter of taking advantage of whatever information is available to the system.
Mr. Ramsay: If someone fits into this category, someone who has been treated for a mental illness in a hospital or mental institute or a psychiatric clinic for matters of violence which have not been reported to the police, then the chief firearms officer has no access to that information.
Mr. Bartlett: May have no access to it.
Mr. Ramsay: How would they have access?
Mr. Bartlett: It may come to their attention in a variety of ways, such as if there has been any contact with the criminal justice system, certainly. But there are other circumstances where the chief firearms officer may be aware because it may simply be known in the community, or there may be provincial processes, judicial processes, civil processes, which have brought the information, the fact of the treatment, to light.
The intent is that they will have regard to whatever information is reasonably available concerning those matters. In lots of cases there will be information that is simply not available. We're not trying to force open information that is otherwise held confidential according to law and accepted medical practice.
That said, the Canadian Medical Association has been looking at the general issue of medical confidentiality and circumstances in which information a doctor is aware of has ramifications for public safety or for the safety of any particular person. It's an ongoing issue of concern to medical associations across the country, and we may well see some changes made in the rules concerning medical confidentiality where public safety may be an issue.
Mr. Ramsay: However, if between now and 1998 nothing changes, then it is possible a licence will be issued to an individual who falls within that category. Because no information is available indicating such to the chief firearms officer, a licence may be issued to that individual.
Mr. Bartlett: It's possible. Other sources of information are inherent in the licensing process. There's a requirement that two references who have known the person for at least three years sign the application to indicate that to the best of their knowledge and belief the information is true. If the person's medical history is known to that person's friends and associates, it may come to light in that fashion. But certainly there are circumstances in which the information simply may not be known to anyone involved in the process and may not come to light at all, or may come to light only later.
.1205
The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Ramsay.
On behalf of the committee, I want to thank the witnesses for appearing this morning. You've been very helpful. And once again, please excuse us for the delay while we voted.
As was stated earlier, if we run into a position where we need to consult you again, we would hope that you would be disposed to come back to the committee.
Just for a minute, before the committee goes, I would like to ask the clerk to give a report on witnesses who stated their intention to come before the committee. It's my understanding that we're going to be meeting during the week of January 27 regardless of whether the House comes back on January 27 or not. We're going to be here for a week of hearings starting on Monday morning, and continuing for the week. That being said, I would like to ask the clerk to perhaps give us a report on the witnesses to come.
Yes, Mr. Ramsay.
Mr. Ramsay: Of course, I register my opposition to coming back on the 27th. As long as that's on the record -
The Chairman: Okay, thank you.
[Translation]
The Clerk of the Committee: We contacted all of the witnesses on the list that was handed out to committee members. We sent a fax last Friday saying that we would contact them when the sub-committee decided on when the hearings would begin.
We will now contact them to tell them that we will begin the week of January 27th and we will send out the list of all the witnesses. If you have any additions to make, please feel free.
[English]
Mr. Ramsay: Who is on the list to represent the forensic scientists from our crime labs?
The Chairman: We did make a point of inviting some. I'll just ask the clerk to explain that more fully.
The Clerk: I do not have them in front of me, but we are going to communicate the names to you.
Mr. Ramsay: Is there no response so far?
The Clerk: So far, no, but we will make sure that some of them will be invited.
Mr. Ramsay: Okay.
The Chairman: I'd like to thank all members of the committee for their participation this morning. I wish everyone a very happy holiday and I look forward to getting together again in the new year. Thank you very much.
The meeting is adjourned.