s

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Thursday, February 6, 1997

.0913

[English]

The Chairman: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. I want to thank you for being here this morning.

We have Mr. Pomerleau, who is substituting for a while for Mr. de Savoye, and Mr. Frazer, who is filling in for Mr. Ramsay for a little while. Welcome to both of you, gentlemen.

I want to welcome our witnesses this morning and thank them very much for coming.

We are now reopening our hearings into the regulations under the Firearms Act. This is our last day of hearings, and I want to thank you, gentlemen, for being with us this morning.

From the User Group on Firearms, we have Mr. Jim Adam, Mr. Terry Burns, and Mr. Steve Torino.

Mr. Torino, you're the vice-president of the Association of Semi-Automatic Firearms Collectors of Quebec Inc.?

Mr. Stephen Torino (User Group on Firearms): That is correct, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: You've been with us before.

Mr. Torino: Yes, sir.

The Chairman: We're pleased to have you back again.

Mr. Torino: Thank you, sir.

The Chairman: On behalf of all of the subcommittee, I want to welcome all of you, gentlemen. We would like to hear your presentation, following which we hope you will allow us to ask some questions.

I don't know how many presentations there are going to be, or who will begin, but please begin, Mr. Adam.

.0915

Mr. James Adam (User Group on Firearms): Good morning, Mr. Chairman and hon. members. Thank you very much for inviting us to attend these hearings, so that we would have the opportunity to introduce ourselves, describe the work we do, present the group's point of view, and answer any questions you may have.

This is important, Mr. Chairman. Our comments will not address subjects such as Bill C-68, as passed. We'd rather concentrate on the purpose of these hearings, giving the group's opinion instead of personal opinions.

Since we are a relatively new group, our presentation will begin by describing who we are and our purpose as established by the formation of this users group, along with how the group works within its mandate to arrive at a collective opinion on the principle of the issues brought to us for review.

The User Group on Firearms was established by the Department of Justice in late 1995 with a specific mandate and terms of reference for the group, which began with royal assent of Bill C-68. Its mandate is to provide advice, from the user's perspective, on the design and implementation of the various components of the firearms registration system, and how it should work to ensure an effective and efficient system that is convenient to use, and that reflects the needs of all users.

The group is also to provide a non-governmental perspective, to incorporate into the registration system the concerns and needs of those using the system. This is done through meetings on the development and implementation of the firearms registration system, during which the group gives practical advice on how the new system will affect firearms users and suggests whatever implementation or changes it feels should be considered.

The mandate also includes consultation on other related issues. We have been working within this mandate.

The group is composed of the following categories of expertise within the firearms community: aboriginal community members; a Canadian Olympic shooting competitor; collectors, who are also target shooters and firearms dealers; competitive target shooters, some of whom are collectors and firearms dealers; firearms business people, who are also collectors and target shooters; FAC or firearms instructors; a firearms officer; law enforcement officers; two outfitters; and recreational hunters. As you can see, this is a pretty diversified group.

The members of the group represent a broad spectrum of involvement with firearms. When opinions are needed on specific areas of concern, the knowledge and expertise of each individual is available to the group. We work with the principles of any given issue presented to us; for example, how best to implement the registration system so that all firearms users - all firearms users - will benefit.

Another principle would be making the rules more understandable by all firearms owners and prospective owners through proper guides prepared to cover all points involved, but in a language understandable by all.

We believe that as a voluntary, non-paid, non-political, and independent group, we are giving our honest and best opinions, supported by practical examples based on each member's individual experience and knowledge. As volunteers, we are willing to work on whatever project is presented to the group.

I would like to emphasize the following: the members have been informed more than once by the minister that their different personal opinions were not a precondition to their being invited to join the users group.

The fact that the individual members' personal beliefs concerning the Firearms Act may vary allows the group to see all sides of an issue being discussed. Consequently, this permits us to arrive at what we believe is a more informed opinion.

The minister has brought this point to our collective attention several times, expressing his view that such a make-up of the group allows his office to hear all sides of an issue, backing up the final decision of the group on the matter discussed.

.0920

We have discovered that this statement is true. We consequently believe that our individual expertise and expressed opinions have helped the government's process of beginning to make all procedures and mechanics of the law less cumbersome and more comprehensible for firearms users.

Since there are many other groups involved in the consultative process, it would be difficult to state exactly what our specific accomplishments were in any area, since many are still in an ongoing process.

The principle of how the group gives its collective opinion, and how we arrive at our decisions on any particular matter brought to us for discussion, are about the same. Regular meetings are held with the group in the Canadian Firearms Centre. During this time discussions take place on specific issues, using information presented to the group, with additional information requested, as needed. Many times, additional meetings of such members are held after hours to continue discussions or iron out areas of concern.

The results of these private meetings are given during the next day's meeting. Once consensus is reached, based on the above, the decisions and/or opinions are given to the government officials working on the specific projects, and the group is subsequently made aware of the final decisions arrived at.

In addition, the members of the group have had personal meetings with Minister Rock and his deputy minister on several firearms issues. Included was a private meeting with Minister Rock concerning certain subjects under discussion, during which the members voiced their personal opinions and obtained the minister's feeling on these points.

Let me turn to our goals and methodology. Our goals were - and are - to provide advice and make recommendations to help implement the registration system in a way that is easy to use, practical, that would suit the needs of the firearms community, and would facilitate compliance through ease of understanding of the rules by all parties. This would also result in the uniform, equal and fair application of these laws and regulations.

The process began in the following areas and progressed to others from there. Concentration on communications has always been of paramount importance and is an ongoing issue due to necessity caused by changes to the law.

The first part of this is the dissemination of the information on the laws, and any changes thereto, to the firearms community, law enforcement agencies, and the general public. The creation of a method of easy access for firearms communities to the various government departments that actually interpret policy and the law is also a part of this issue.

With this, the individual firearms owners may find out for themselves exactly what their responsibilities and the responsibilities of the government are with respect to the specific provisions that concern them.

The support system for this should not impede compliance with the regulations and the mechanisms in place; rather, it should encourage use by all persons concerned. Written laws must be readily understood by the average firearms owner without the necessity to resort to legal counsel or interpretation. Therefore, readily understandable guides that cover all the issues must be available before any new laws are put into force.

The individual needs of the areas represented by each member of this group have been very important in helping with this task. The present guide to the proposed regulations could be more comprehensive while retaining its present format. We would recommend that communications be considered a priority item and that the Department of Justice continue to increase its communications efforts for comprehensive, plain-language guides that cover all areas of the law and that affect firearms owners. This would be an ongoing recommendation on our part.

In addition, we strongly believe that the area of communications and access to the persons responsible for applying the rules should be given the greatest priority and consideration.

.0925

With this first set of regulations being considered at present by this committee, we believe these points should be given the utmost consideration, since the next set of regulations to come down this year are really part of the same implementation process of the Firearms Act.

Since this set of regulations is only the first part to be reviewed, with the balance to be tabled later this year, we believe our efforts and recommendations should be directed towards the entire set of regulations rather than only towards this first part, as now tabled.

I would now like to address specifics. There are several examples of areas we have worked on, and/or areas where we have rendered opinions on the principles involved. An example is the method of establishing a communications base between the government and the various groups in the firearms community so that any changes in law would be disseminated to those groups and the general public as soon as possible.

Now, there are questions. Bill C-17 has been out for approximately four years, and Bill C-68 has been out for a year. Our findings lead us to believe that nobody really understands them. This is solely and totally due to the lack of communication and plain-language communications, when it does exist.

Speaking solely from the perspective of my area, I think that any information received in the one major newspaper is generally of a derogatory kind, when somebody shoots themselves or somebody else. Very little attention is given to the context, the direction, or the intention of the present government and the goals of Bill C-68. This concerns us very much.

I spoke only then as someone from my area, but this applies to all areas. It's of great concern to the 15 who are represented in this group.

Regular updates, along with the methods of training personnel involved with the matters mentioned above, together with the material needed to accomplish this task, were also explained.

Another example is advance publicity of any new regulations through the various media sources.

Methods of ensuring uniform and even-handed application of all laws across Canada, through information packages that are complete and are being given to the firearms community groups and the individual firearms owner, along with law enforcement personnel, are an additional example.

So too are methods of quick communication between the firearms community and the government officials involved in the application of the various firearms laws. At this point, these people should fully understand whom they can call.

The problem we have discovered here is that people have a tendency.... Because a man is in a uniform, particularly a policeman, they think he can provide all the answers. This is a fallacy, of course. Today's policeman has enough on his mind without being a student of law.

So there should be a communication method made very prominent and public, where people can contact their local CPFO's office or someone who would provide the information. Those of us who are in this industry are constantly being bombarded with questions, such as who do I talk to, where do I go, how do you interpret this, etc.?

To be quite frank with you, hon. members, we don't feel this is our job. This has been going on for four years, because people do not understand the law. You not only have people who do not understand the law, but you have people who are illiterate. But they too are firearms owners.

Another example is methods of improving relations between the government bodies and the firearms community.

Computerized registration system overviews are an additional example. This is by no means a completed project.

Another example is the methods of procedures for issuing firearms licences.

In addition, there are aboriginal concerns and the legislative effects upon the various communities.

The contents of federal firearms safety courses are another example.

An additional example is the screening process for firearms licenses.

And finally, there are the regulations as tabled.

The group has reviewed these several times, making numerous suggestions on the principles we believe should be included or removed. The members have noted that many of the recommendations have been incorporated into the draft regulations.

.0930

We have seen, for example, that the recommendations to leave the regulations on storage, display, and transportation for individuals as they were under Bill C-17 has been accepted, much to our general satisfaction. Our reason for this recommendation is that the firearms community is just beginning to understand these regulations and their purpose, and to change them now would result in misunderstandings and problems of non-compliance. Most persons we have spoken to in our respective areas have voiced acceptance and agreement with the Bill C-17 regulations, so why change them when they are being adhered to and no problems seem to have arisen? We also understand that other groups have voiced the same opinion on these regulations.

Having witnessed and experienced some of the processes involved in preparing regulations, we believe we have a better understanding of the issues involved in writing up the legal text and therefore why they are written in the manner they are. As more issues are raised, such as domestic violence, etc., the drafters attempt to tie together all these points. The result is a booklet several times the size of the regulations as published under the prior law, and it seems to go on and on and on.

One of our concerns is the level of practicality of certain sections because of their complexity, along with the separating of regulations into many different categories when possibly they could be combined to facilitate understanding by the average person. We believe one principle should be to not make them so cumbersome that they are unreadable, which leads to misunderstandings and therefore non-compliance by persons who are merely attempting to understand their responsibilities. We ask that the members of this subcommittee study this point.

Now for our conclusions.

The group believes it has seen some positive steps taken regarding the steering of the process towards the goals of ease of comprehension and better methods of communication with the individual members of the firearms community. If the regulations are to be accepted by the firearms groups affected, they must be logical and fair, not just a reaction to a particular event.

To be understood by all, they must be easily read by the average person, with the perspective of the diverse backgrounds of the Canadian firearms owner being considered as of paramount importance. In addition, any system of laws must be user-friendly to the average firearms owner and potential owner, as well as to the local registrar.

All components, from access to needed information in an easy, readable form to the attitudes of the agencies responsible for the application of the rules to the fee structures, should not be an impediment to those persons affected by the law.

Fair, equitable rules that are easy to understand will produce ease of compliance. Complicated rules are a one-way street leading in another direction.

I'll sum up our recommendations.

We again stress that the improvement of communications and communication methods should be a high-priority item, including easy access to the agency personnel responsible for applying the rules.

The complexity of the rules to the point of being difficult to understand by the average firearms owner should be reviewed in an attempt to produce a user-friendly system that is easily understood by all involved. This would be best served, in our opinion, by the issuance of easily understood yet comprehensive guides that would address all points of law and the regulations.

By combining many of the separate regulations that are repetitive, much confusion can be eliminated, since all relevant information is in one location. This will reduce the number of regulations, facilitating everyone's tasks.

Thank you.

The Chairman: Thank you very much, Mr. Adam.

We'll now go to questions.

[Translation]

Mr. Pomerleau.

.0935

Mr.Pomerleau (Anjou - Rivière-des-Prairies): Thank you, Mr. Adam. Your presentation has been quite interesting. Your group represents various people from the firearms community, given that it has members from aboriginal communities, collectors, outfitters and hunters. What percentage of the firearms community in Canada does your group represent?

[English]

Mr. Adam: As I've said here, we have covered a very broad spectrum of the firearms community, everything from an Olympic shooter - a participating Olympic shooter, incidentally, not a past Olympic shooter - to law enforcement officers to collector-shooters.

We are 15 people on this committee and we come from 15 different parts of the country: the territories, the Yukon, the east and west coasts, and everywhere in between. What percentage we represent I'm not prepared to answer. I can only say we do represent a large community; percentage-wise I couldn't tell you.

[Translation]

Mr. Pomerleau: Almost all of your report is based of course on the need to have communications between the firearms community and the government that are reasonably easy to understand. We know that the regulations are presently worded in legal terms that may not be easy for most users to understand. You have highlighted this fact and it is indeed a very important aspect. During your discussions, have you considered asking the government to produce a video on these regulations of the Act?

[English]

Mr. Torino: We have addressed the issue of all types of communications, including video. One of the problems with videotape, VCRs, etc., is there are many communities in Canada that still do not have complete access to this.

One of the principles this group has been addressing is how to communicate to all Canadians - all Canadians. That's the most important point. People in the main centres who have access to the CFO's offices can most of the time obtain reasonable information. At times the information may be erroneous, but at least they have access.

Many thousands of firearms owners and non-firearms owners who might be interested in getting involved in the firearms community are out in the middle of what we'll call nowhere, with no access to any law enforcement agencies of any kind. They cannot obtain the information without possibly a long-distance phone call made from a friend's house. Maybe they don't even have a telephone. They have no access to any communication. Therefore videotape is only one method of disseminating this information.

We still believe the best approach is a comprehensive booklet backed up with the actual regulations, the Firearms Act, etc. - a booklet that covers all points in simple language. We took a look at the guide to the proposed regulations that came out, and our collective opinion is that it's a good beginning, but it is not comprehensive; it does not cover all the points required.

We understand that these are draft regulations and the guide is also a draft. It should be addressed and in its final form it should be much more comprehensive, be easily understood, and cover all major points anyone might want for their particular needs. We believe if you do not have this in the form of a booklet, a videotape, or whatever, the message will not get across, and people out there who are afraid of what might happen can only continue to have their fears augmented without proper information.

They should be able to go through a book, pick out a point, and say, that kind of answers what I'm looking for, and if I have any other questions, I'll address them to whoever is responsible.

.0940

When you've done this and established responsibilities, you've gone a long way to communicating the ideas of Bill C-17, Bill C-60, or any other regulations, and you have a better understanding between not only the firearms community and law enforcement but also all individuals involved in the process. Other citizens who might not have the remotest interest in firearms also are able to understand what is involved, and it might also calm down some of the fears on the other side, in the non-firearms community.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Thank You, Mr. Pomerleau.

[English]

Mr. Frazer.

Mr. Frazer (Saanich - Gulf Islands): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, gentlemen, for your presentation.

You've come down very heavily on communications, and that is vital. If people don't understand the law, then they have great difficulty in abiding by it.

You mentioned that you are representing some people who are in fact illiterate. You also mentioned that your group is willing to work with government to help the program through. Do you have any method in mind to try to communicate the facts of the law and the requirements to these people who are not able to read or understand the law by themselves?

Mr. Terrance Burns (User Group on Firearms): I might be able to tackle that one.

There's the written word, which will get out to many, but as you said, there is a percentage of illiterate people in various provinces. A video approach might help.

Also, many of us are firearms safety instructors, as part of the federal course - I know I am - and we end up getting maybe two, three, or four people in a class. A lot of the information will be walked through. We walk them through the requirements, how to meet those requirements, and so on. This has been going on since Bill C-17. We've found it to be fairly effective in getting that knowledge out to the people who are coming into the system, renewing an FAC, or whatever.

As for the firearms user who has his FAC but doesn't understand it, doesn't read, all we can hope for is that if a grand section of the firearms community understands what's out there and understands it clearly and accurately, then we can pass it on to the various people through the shooting clubs, the hunting activities, the gun shows, and what have you.

If there's a very broad base of understanding - and I must stress accurate understanding - of very clear, concise, comprehensive rules, then we will get that information out, and it won't be, well, I heard from...and his interpretation was...but then his friend said -

Again, it all comes back to this. Whatever regulations get finalized here, we have to get it out clearly, quickly, accurately, and in an umbrella or blanket way right across Canada, dealing with all communities. It shouldn't be a place to cut corners.

Mr. Frazer: Because your group is so broadly represented, have you done any studies or made any estimates of the cost of the implementation of this program? Do you have those types of figures available?

Mr. Torino: We do not have the figures available. We've received a large variety of numbers - any figure you wish to pick. No, seriously.

Mr. Frazer: I believe you.

Mr. Torino: From what we understand from the people involved, these things being an ongoing process, final figures have been established but have not finally been approved by the various committees, caucuses, etc., involved. So I don't think we're prepared to answer that question right now, because I don't think we can give you an accurate answer.

Mr. Frazer: Proceeding a little further down the same line, you're also representing some of the firearms industry. Has a study been done on how the law will affect the firearms industry?

Mr. Torino: I believe yesterday the industry spokesman and René Roberge, who is a spokesman for the Canadian dealers association, made presentations to this committee, and I hope at that time these questions may have been answered. The members who are firearms dealers receive this information through these various sources, and as yet we've received.... As I said, some studies have been negative, some have been positive, some in between, and to comment at this point.... I would suggest that you refer to the briefs they presented.

.0945

Mr. Frazer: I have one last question.

Again going back to communication and the problem with people who are either illiterate or very difficult to access, Mr. Torino, you mentioned the difficulty for some people to see videos and so on. It strikes me that your group, or some group like yours, would have to assume some responsibility for communicating. If the easily read, easily understandable guide is produced, somebody still has to get that information to the people who are hard to access, and I hope people like those in your group will be willing to provide this communication. While you could provide a direct number so that people could call the government and ask what is your interpretation, or what does this mean, that doesn't apply to everybody, for the very reasons you gave us earlier.

Mr. Torino: It is most interesting that you bring up this point, because the user group has had a meeting going on for the last couple of days with the Canadian Firearms Centre and members of the justice department, and that is exactly one of the issues we were covering. It's an ongoing process.

What we're looking at is personal appearances by individuals concerned, either in the Department of Justice or whoever, members of the firearms community who are heavily involved in this. Whether they are for Bill C-68 or against it makes no difference. The dissemination of information is what is important. No one can say they are for or against something if they do not truly understand what it's about.

If you do not have people who have access to videos or VCRs - those who are illiterate, as you mentioned - then you are stuck with a personal approach to individuals, and this is currently being considered. As I said, this is an ongoing project.

Mr. Frazer: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: Thank you very much, Mr. Frazer. Mr. Kirkby is next.

Mr. Kirkby (Prince Albert - Churchill River): I would like to thank the gentlemen before us here today for taking the time to share their views with us. I also appreciate the fact that they have worked so hard on this issue and provided the government with a lot of very helpful suggestions.

During the course of your work you have met with the Canadian Firearms Centre, the assistant deputy minister in charge of the process, the deputy minister, and the minister himself. Is that correct?

Mr. Adam: That's correct.

Mr. Kirkby: You are representatives of different areas of the firearms community and people who utilize firearms in a legitimate fashion. Is that correct?

Mr. Torino: If I could make a slight correction to the statement, we are individuals who were selected for reasons that many of us don't fully comprehend. That is the truth, by the way. We're still trying to figure that out.

We do not represent specific areas. All the members of this committee are heavily involved in the local communities, the various provincial and territorial communities, and from that we receive a very broad-based view of opinions. It's also because of the expertise and individual knowledge of each member that we're able to work together to arrive at some sort of group recommendation to each problem that is presented to us.

The members of the committee vary in their opinions as to whether or not Bill C-68 is correct. Some believe it is not, some believe it is. But being able to table all our opinions in a conference room...sometimes things do get a little bit heavy, but as I'm sure they do in any caucus - to date, anyway - they always lead to recommendations that everyone agrees with.

.0950

This is based on the fact that from our analysis of the level of experience, the number of years that each individual has been involved in his or her particular area, we haven't seen anybody under at least 15 or 20 years. There are no people here on this group who have no experience, are newcomers or whatever, which surprised us completely on day one when we started to take a look and talk to each other, asking how long have you been doing this, whatever.

So it's the individual knowledge more than anything else that helps. When we go back home and discuss issues that have been settled, that have been officially published, people understand that their areas of concern have been at least expressed to the government, and that in some cases we have been able to get the government to actually change its path, the way they're going. We won some, we did lose some, but because we're a new group, the vast majority of our projects are still in process.

Mr. Kirkby: From what you're saying, then, I'm sure that in the representations you've made to the different individuals and groups of people within government you have expressed your opinions forcefully, put them forth vigorously, and I'm sure there has been considerable frank discussion, if I may put it that way. You did not necessarily ask, please, would you consider this? I think it's fair to say that you have been fairly active in your role. Where you see a problem, you forcefully represent it. Would that be accurate?

Mr. Adam: I think that would be a very accurate summation of the situation, Mr. Kirkby.

Mr. Kirkby: You have indicated that as you are a new group, many of your tasks, many of the things you consider, are still ongoing and you know you still have work to do. We cannot predict all of the particular problems that may arise from time to time. Would you see your role as a continuation of the role now and into the future?

Mr. Torino: The mandate of the user group was for a minimum of two years, with an extension of an additional five years. Whether or not that is the actual truth will depend on election results, etc., I'm sure. All the members of this committee are absolutely committed to staying on for as long as possible, assuming that some of our opinions don't get us kicked off the committee. But I don't think that's going to happen at this stage.

Being a volunteer group, we always offer 28-hour-a-day service, which is a strange way of putting it, but it says that we came here to try to fulfil our mandate, and being a volunteer group, we think that so far we've been at least able to fulfil that purpose of giving our opinions. Whether we can continue to do so in the future or not nobody knows, but we are confident that we will be able to.

Mr. Kirkby: I understand you have put forward your opinions in the manner you have. I also understand that in various parts of the community there's a lot of opposition to Bill C-68, and I understand how difficult it may have been for some of you to say you're going to work at this and put forward these concerns. I just want to say I admire your courage, your fortitude, your willingness to serve your country on this one. Thank you very much.

The Chairman: Thank you very much, Mr. Kirkby.

Mr. Adam, Mr. Torino, I notice you have some associates sitting behind you. If you want to introduce them and the organizations they represent and where they're from, you certainly are permitted to do so. It may give us an idea of the diversity of the organization.

.0955

Mr. Adam: Would you prefer, Mr. Chairman, that they introduce themselves or that we introduce them?

The Chairman: Perhaps you could introduce them, yes.

Mr. Adam: With us today we have Mr. Peter Ernerk from Rankin Inlet, Northwest Territories; Mr. Gerry Pyke, from the Vancouver Police Department; Mr. Ron Gibson.... Where's your home, Ron? I know it changes from season to season.

Mr. Ronald Gibson (User Group on Firearms): Well, we'll say it's Thunder Bay.

Mr. Adam: He's a Thunder Bay, Ontario, outfitter.

Remy Gendron joined us just yesterday, and I'm sorry -

Mr. Torino: Remy is from the chief firearms office. He represents Captain Guy Asselin, the CFO for Quebec.

Mr. Adam: The last gentleman is Mr. Don Cameron from Virden, Manitoba.

The Chairman: Thank you very much, Mr. Adam. Thank you, gentlemen.

We'll now go to

[Translation]

Mr. Pomerleau. Do you have any more questions?

Mr. Pomerleau: No, I simply wanted to take this opportunity to thank our panel members for their presentations and, as my honourable friend Mr. Kirkby did, to recognize that the work they have accomplished has probably not been easy, especially since some of them must have been opposed to the bill. The fact that you have considered and discussed the provisions shows that you really want to help things along, as Mr. Kirkby quite rightly suggested.

I want to personally thank all the members of your group. Their contribution will certainly increase our awareness of the fundamental communication problems with this bill. Thank you very much.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Pomerleau.

[English]

Ms Whelan.

Ms Whelan (Essex - Windsor): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

You've told us why you're here and why you're involved with the group. I thought I would preface my comments by telling you why I'm on this committee.

When I was elected in 1993, if anyone had told me I'd be involved in a debate on gun control, I would have said they were crazy. I represent a riding that is very diverse and has a very diverse group of firearm owners - collectors, hunters, historical re-enactors - as well as being a very concerned community about crime. Also, I live in a community across from Detroit, which has an extremely high crime rate, and it's also a border community.

So there's a variety of interests there. But I like to believe the reason I'm part of this committee as well is that I was very vocal about a number of things in Bill C-68 during the process and I want to make sure that in the end what we have is a reasonable solution.

I have many collectors and many target shooters and many hunters who are very concerned about their rights and about the cost and that everything is explained properly to them. I was very interested in what you said about communication. I find it difficult myself as a member of Parliament to disseminate the information, to get the information out there. Having heard that you're making that recommendation reassures me that hopefully the Department of Justice will listen.

I have had about 500 individual contacts in my riding alone from people who have written to me asking for information. Yet their most recent brochure wasn't available in that number to every individual member of Parliament. You're talking thousands and thousands of copies. So I appreciate your efforts, and I'm a bit concerned about a number of things that are in the guide as well.

I was wondering if you've been able to direct communication to certain groups. Are there lists available? Have those things been suggested to the Department of Justice?

Mr. Burns: Actually, various individuals in the group have said, look, we should get this information out to this group, or whatever. I think it was a couple of thousand brochures that were distributed to 800 firearm safety instructors in my province. They passed the information on - they had their one brochure, and as I said, that took up 800 of them - to the various courses. We also sent it out to different district offices with Natural Resources, since that's where most hunters will go to buy their licences. Other individuals have said, okay, I need some for this group; they're quite influential.

.1000

I think it's a very good approach. I would encourage anybody, whether they're a member of Parliament or a representative of an agency or whoever, who sees a need to get these brochures out to, if necessary, put some pressure on the justice department. If they're going to make the rules, make sure people understand what the rules are. There's a lot of fear out there. Let's try to calm that fear down if they're not legitimate fears, or even if they're legitimate. Let them at least not have to deal with the unknown.

Ms Whelan: I couldn't agree more with you, Mr. Burns. I think it's very important that people know what we're proposing, know what's out there, and understand the law. As recently as yesterday a collector who contacted my office was astounded to learn what the fee was going to be for him to keep his guns. I was shocked that after the months of communication and what's been going on through the media that he wasn't aware of the fees that had been proposed. So I realize that there is a problem still with communications, that somehow - we as a committee have to make recommendations as well - that needs to be fixed.

I appreciate what your group's doing. You should be aware, a number of people wanted to be part of your group. So you may not know how you got there, but I can tell you that you are a chosen group. I appreciate your efforts, as do the rest of the members of the committee. I wish you luck as you continue on.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: Thank you very much, Ms Whelan.

Mr. Frazer, do you have further questions?

Mr. Frazer: No, Mr. Chairman, I don't have any further questions, but I'd like to echoMr. Pomerleau, Ms Whelan and Mr. Kirkby in saying that I commend this group.

A number of us may not agree with Bill C-68 or the raison d'être behind it, but I think it's vital that when it's a law, we have to attempt to abide by it. The only way you can abide by a law is if you know what it says, what it means and how it impacts on you and what you must do to abide by it. Therefore, the communication aspect you mentioned is vital. If your organization is able to assist in this communication process, then your time has been particularly well spent. I commend you.

Thank you.

The Chairman: Thank you very much, Mr. Frazer. Mr. Maloney is next.

Mr. Maloney (Erie): Gentlemen, perhaps very briefly - I know our time is fleeting - I'd also like to thank you for your input not only on these regulations but also on the course of Bill C-68. I think it's important that you had input and that you had access to the minister and to the Department of Justice, and that they listened to you in some situations. I think that's very good.

Your comments on simplifying the legalese of regulations and laws is I think a very important point that we should take to heart, not only with this legislation but with all legislation. I think sometimes we have more of an eye on how the courts are going to interpret it as opposed to how the general individual can interpret it. I think your comments are very important.

I couldn't agree with you more on communications. One of the problems I have is that I try to send out as much information as I can to my ``gun guys'', as I refer to them - these are the people who have written to me complaining about Bill C-68 - but I often get a letter back saying not to send them any more information. They're not willing to listen. They perhaps feed on each other and are not prepared to see it. A lot of the problems could be alleviated if they would only try to understand what it's about. I have some difficulties with that. I'd like your comments on what I can do to address that problem.

More specifically, you've talked about a comprehensive booklet. Are you working with the Department of Justice to produce such a document? If you're not, could we encourage the Department of Justice to do so?

Finally, we've spoken very much in generalities, not specifics, in terms of these regulations. We could sit here for the whole day and listen to your comments on the specifics, of which we're here to hear about, but perhaps I can just address it to the fees.

Do you have any real concerns about the fees? Are they too high, too low, or okay? Do you have any comments on any specific fee area? Perhaps some are okay and some are not. Without opening a can of worms, I suppose, I want to hear from you on these issues.

.1005

Mr. Torino: Could I be permitted to answer this? As I understand it, these hearings have been going on for the past two weeks, and possibly back to before the break for the Christmas holiday. We've looked at some of the briefs and presentations of other groups, and it is our collective opinion that these issues have been covered in depth - at least all of the major areas that you're referring to - by all of these other groups in the briefs that have been presented to you. For us to comment would render a personal opinion on issues that are, in some cases, still ongoing. In that case, we would prefer not to comment any further on those points.

Mr. Maloney: Mr. Adam, do you have a -

Mr. Adam: I echo Mr. Torino's comments. We are not here to render our personal opinion, sir, and I feel that your question does call for a personal opinion. On that basis, I would prefer not to answer it.

Mr. Burns: I don't want to pick out any specific fees, because one group will say that fee is okay for them while my fee is too high, or whatever. What we're trying to get across here today is that whenever you make any regulation, the principles behind the making of that regulation are what should be its foundation, before you get into the details of $20, $50, or into going to this agency or that agency, or whatever it might be. Those principles include understandability; communication; ease of accessibility; the willingness of the agent - whether it be in a CPFO's office, an RCMP office, or whatever - to help the person comply with the law; helping the person understand the why, the what, and the how of complying with the law. Whether they agree with it or not is beside the point. It is a law, so how do I do it?

One thing I'm concerned with is that it should be a proactive, common-sense approach that's taken, a demonstrated willingness to consider all the difficulties that a person may have, whether they be geographical, getting to the various offices, getting a certified cheque, getting a money order, coming up with the cost, or whatever. We should work to try to help people avoid any problems that can be anticipated.

As far as fees are concerned, this is not going to answer your question in terms of specifics, but I would say that any costs that are being considered must not be prohibitive. They must not be such a hurdle that people have to find a way to jump it. And any delivery mechanism that's developed must ease compliance. It shouldn't be a situation in which you go to one door and get directed to another door, and so on.

We tried to get in here this morning. We went to a couple of buildings and we were screened. One person said, yes, it's here; another person said, no, it's over there. One person said to go right in; another person said we couldn't because we had to go through the screening process. A third person said he'd take care of us; yet another said we had to have this. And we had a guide who knows this route.

Now imagine someone who just wants to comply with the law. He's not even sure it's a good law, but he does want to comply with it. He's sent from CPFO to RCMP to, maybe, Natural Resources and back to somebody else. Depending on the time of day and what answer they get, they're going to be frustrated, and then you're going to charge them money just to have that frustration.

What we're trying to get across here are the principles behind the development of any regulation. Then, once you've considered why we need this regulation and you have made the regulation, get it out there, because people will get their information. Let's just hope it's accurate information.

Mr. Maloney: There's one question that you haven't addressed: are you working with the Department of Justice to produce a simple, easily understood booklet that would help to educate the gun community on these regulations and the act?

.1010

Mr. Adam: In one word, Mr. Maloney, yes. But I would like to refer to what is directly above the chairman's head: ``the spirit of the printed word''. That's what we're seeking. We need to find the spirit of the easily understood printed word so that these complicated bills and laws can be understood by everyone.

Mr. Maloney: Thank you, Mr. Adam.

The Chairman: Thank you very much, Mr. Maloney.

Thank you very much, gentlemen - Mr. Adam, Mr. Torino, Mr. Burns, and the gentleman sitting behind you - for persevering and finding us. We appreciate your testimony and contribution this morning. It's been very helpful. I think your accent on communications has been well noted by the subcommittee.

Mr. Adam: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Speaking for the group as a whole, we appreciate your having us here, and we look forward to being invited back.

The Chairman: I'm sure you will be.

We now go to our next witness, Mr. Bruce Phillips, the privacy commissioner. We'll just take a couple of minutes while we're getting set up for him.

.1011

.1015

The Chairman: I want to welcome Mr. Bruce Phillips, the privacy commissioner, this morning and thank him for taking time from his busy schedule to appear. I also want to welcomeMs Holly Harris, the general counsel.

You are our last witnesses in our subcommittee hearings on the proposed regulations. We look forward to hearing from you as an old friend of the justice committees and all subcommittees thereunder. Please, sir, when you're ready, we look forward to your presentation.

Mr. Bruce Phillips (Privacy Commissioner of Canada): Mr. Chairman, I will resist the temptation to say that you've saved the best for the last.

The Chairman: Please.

Mr. Phillips: Thank you very much for calling us back here, because what's before us now is really the heart of the issue as far as privacy is concerned. When we were here the last time we were dealing with the statute, which was, as far as privacy was concerned, pretty silent on those issues. It remained to be resolved when the regulations were promulgated. And now we've had a look at them.

I have a prepared statement that has been distributed to the committee, and I'm going to skip over the usual lecture I give to committees about what I do. I'll skip over reminding you that I am an officer of Parliament and that I work for you to give you the benefit of our advice, for what it's worth. I'll skip strictly to the issues.

As a general preamble, I have to say that I'm a little disappointed with what I have seen emerge in the regulations insofar as privacy is concerned. When I say a little disappointed, I think I'm erring on the side of understatement.

First of all, I should underline the fact the Privacy Act applies only to the 100 federal organizations that are listed in the schedule of the Privacy Act. It does not extend to any provincial or municipal institution and it does not cover the private sector. Also, the confidentiality provisions of the Privacy Act can be overridden by specific exemptions contained in other Parliamentary statutes. I think you have to keep those things in mind as we go through this.

I'm a good deal less hopeful about the legal protection for the information that's going to be collected under this act than the drafters of the regulatory impact statement that accompanies the firearms regulations are. Two statements were made in those impact assessments that are very much at odds with what I understand to be the situation.

The first one, and I think it's with respect to section 9 of the regulations, asserts:

matters of access to the information kept and the privacy of that information will be found in the relevant provincial and federal law.

That's what the drafters say in their impact assessment statement.

The second observation is: ``the law is comprehensive and deals adequately with all the issues''.

I don't agree with those statements. Let me throw a little cold water on them and explain why.

First, not all jurisdictions have privacy law. Prince Edward Island and the Yukon, for example, have no legal privacy protection whatsoever.

Second, some provincial privacy laws deal only with the issue of an individual's access to his or her records. They impose no controls on government collection, use and disclosure of those personal records. This group includes Manitoba, New Brunswick and Newfoundland.

Third, in some jurisdictions the municipal police forces that will gather and control the records are not subject to privacy law. This group includes New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island, the Yukon and the Northwest Territories.

I think those three points are sufficient to undermine the certainty of the statement contained in the impact assessment drafted by, I presume, the justice department. In six of the twelve jurisdictions the protection for these records, at least relative to the standard of the federal Privacy Act, is incomplete.

I think it's essential that we understand the patchwork nature of privacy law across this country, because in essence this proposed registry is a kind of a hybrid construct. I understand that personal data, including the background check, will be gathered and stored by local firearms officers, usually local police officers; by the chief firearms officer, in some cases a provincial official, in some cases a Royal Canadian Mounted Police official in his or her capacity as a provincial policing agency; and selected personal data - some of it - will be entered in a federally controlled registry, which is subject to the Privacy Act. This means there are effectively three storage points for each applicant's information, only one of which you can be sure is subject to a comprehensive privacy law.

.1020

Several of the questions I raised before the Senate committee - I think it was back in the late fall of 1995 - remain unanswered because the regulations don't provide sufficient detail. Perhaps the most important of these is the fundamental question: what can you do to protect Canadians' rights to control some potentially very sensitive personal information when the jurisdiction is shared and there is no comprehensive privacy law and no general scheme outlined in the regulations themselves?

Specifically, to whom will an applicant go to seek access to these records? What personal information is to be collected? Who will have control of the information? How will the information be used? To whom will the information be disclosed? To whom can the individual take a complaint?

It now appears that we will have to wait for the forms and a detailed schematic of the process to answer some of these questions, and I think that's a situation with which we should all feel some discomfort. I encourage you to seek some answers to those questions.

I want to turn to some specific concerns that focus on regulations 1 and 9, as numbered in your book.

Although a member of my staff has worked with the firearms centre for several months, we have only been consulted on and commented upon regulation 9, and unfortunately our comments appear to have had very little impact on the regulations now before you.

My first concern has to do with regulation number 1, which focuses on the privacy implications of notifying current and former spouses. Since information collected under the firearms registry program may be accessible to the applicant where a privacy law exists, spouses, and indeed any informants, should be told that the applicant has a legal right to see their comments, absent any applicable exemptions. The alternative, of promising confidentiality, could be a problem, depending upon the law in the relevant jurisdiction.

Let me just elaborate on that in a practical way, if I may. The federal Privacy Act acknowledges the principle of knowing what other people say about you, being free in essence to face one's accuser. The act gives individuals access to their personal information, with some specific exemptions.

One of those exemptions, for example, for which there may be some parallels in some provincial laws, is the ability to withhold personal information if its release could reasonably be expected to threaten another person's safety. I think you can see situations where that exemption might arise, in the case of an application by an applicant for a licence, for example, to see his or her record. However, this is not an automatic exemption any more than any others - most of them, anyway - under the federal act. It has to be sturdily supported by a reasonable case, not a mere allegation.

Another concern is how firearms officers are going to ensure that the information is accurate and not influenced either by the spouse's or informant's fear of the applicant or a desire simply to obstruct the applicant or to seek revenge, or whether it's motivated by malice - all of those possibilities. The consequences of erroneous information in cases like that could be quite substantial. I'll come to that again in a moment.

That concern, the accuracy of the information, the method of the investigation that underlies the collection, is very acute here, given the very broad powers and discretion that is provided firearms officers to investigate and to gather ``additional'' information about applicants, with no attempt to define any limitations, reasonable or otherwise.

.1025

I read with care the evidence given by justice department officials to another committee hearing on this subject, and I am as concerned as ever with the very broad, undefined nature of the information-gathering power. In some jurisdictions, applicants will have no right of access to the information - at least in law - and therefore no opportunity to challenge its relevance or its accuracy, for example, in Prince Edward Island, where there is no privacy law. An applicant would have no right established in law to see what is on the file.

In other jurisdictions, there's no right to annotate any disputed details. For example, the Privacy Act allows you to challenge the accuracy of any record that the government holds about you. Even if the government does not agree with the challenge, the act requires them to annotate the record to show that you have an objection and what the objection is.

Should an applicant seek a court review of a denial of a licence or a revocation of a licence, what is to prevent public disclosure of personal details that could range from the embarrassing and the irrelevant to, frankly, the specious and the malicious?

Here is a very interesting problem, and I think it was raised by Ms Whelan at a previous committee hearing, with respect to the appeal process. If a chief firearms officer decides to revoke a licence or to refuse to grant one, there is a process provided in the statute for an appeal to the courts for a review of the basis of firearms officer's decision. It is not a review that is associated with any charge that carries any presumption of innocence with it, and there is the possibility, as I see, in that process of a great deal of unsubstantiated information - possibly malicious gossip, some neighbour who doesn't like the applicant, who may have given the local firearms officer some highly misleading or highly inaccurate or improperly motivated information - getting into a public courtroom, because the justice department concedes that the review process is public, and a good deal of unsubstantiated matter going onto the public record, being accessible to the public and possibly obtaining wide distribution, at the expense of the reputation of the individual.

It is not a light matter. Let us try to construct a hypothetical case here in which a good deal of information of that kind is laid before a court and is open to the public. It might be a person of some eminence, but that doesn't matter; it may be a person of no eminence whatsoever. But it finds its way into the public print. It's unsubstantiated gossip; it damages that person's reputation, could hurt that person's employment, and could have a whole lot of unpleasant effects. So I think we have to look at that problem.

It leads me to make a suggestion or two. The first is that some attempt be made to define what types of ``additional'' information may be relevant to granting a licence, so as to prevent fishing expeditions. I don't think we should be too comfortable with giving investigators a total carte blanche on a matter of this kind.

The second is to implement an intermediate review process for those people who are denied a licence or have their licence revoked. An immediate recourse to the courts, among other things, is burdensome for the applicant and, one might argue also, for the courts, and I've already discussed the public disclosure aspect of that.

Cannot some interim measure be introduced that would allow applicants to challenge the denial? I'm thinking, for example, of an independent third party or a panel.

I'd like to come now to regulation 9, the firearms records regulations. Many of the concerns with this section stem from my earlier comments about the hybrid nature of the records collection. What privacy rules apply to the records where there is no relevant provincial or territorial statute? Where there is law, how is it going to be determined who has control over the records for the purpose of providing access and making corrections? What constitutes a record? Where the law is not comprehensive, who, if anyone, can be held responsible for its proper collection, use and disclosure?

.1030

Remember, there is no default to the federal Privacy Act contained in these regulations where no provincial law exists. There simply is no law.

It seems evident to me that unless the rules are spelled out in the regulations themselves, Canadians in some jurisdictions will have no legal privacy protection for some exceptionally sensitive personal records. I'm not the first person to raise this concern, I don't think. It's been articulated by several groups. In their present form the regulations do nothing to alleviate what I think is a legitimate and serious concern.

We also have suggestions concerning some of the details. For example, the records are to be retained for 10 years following their creation. Rather than calculating the retention period from the date the file was created, we recommended using the date of the last administrative action, which is the practice under the federal act. This would allow applicants a reasonable period to resolve any disputes or appeals that could be under way at the 10-year point.

Other retention periods are worth looking at. I do this with all humility, because I understand it is not an easy question to decide, how long you should keep records in cases involving firearms. For example, I wonder why an applicant's test results are to be kept for life. If owners are re-tested at regular intervals - something that is not clear in the regulations - I would argue that only the most recent test result would be the relevant one for retention in the record and the only one, certainly, that would be most accurate and most valid.

Another question concerns the lifetime storage of prohibition orders and probation orders. For example, a court order prohibiting an individual from owning a weapon for five years would remain in the individual's file for life. Assuming that the information could be used to evaluate and reject any future applications, it would have the effect of extending, by administrative fiat, a court order.

While I understand that, technically speaking, retention periods are the business of the national archivist, in both these circumstances I think there are privacy implications. In any case, they're contained in the regulations. I do not know to what extent those proposed regulations are the result of consultations with the archivist.

In conclusion, I recommend that personal information collected, used and disclosed under the authority of these regulations be subject, at a minimum, to the fair information management principles that form the basis of the Privacy Act and those comprehensive provincial privacy statutes that are now in effect in B.C., Ontario, Quebec and a couple of other places. The regulations should clearly state this. It should of course be open to Parliament - and it is - to introduce even stricter controls. Without these provisions, I think Canadians are going to be short-changed.

Thanks very much, members of the committee. We would now be happy to handle questions.

The Chairman: Thank you very much, Mr. Phillips.

[Translation]

We'll now go to questions, starting with Mr. Pomerleau.

Mr. Pomerleau: Mr. Phillips, I want to thank you very much for your presentation. You are the Privacy Commissioner and you have raised extremely important issues, crucial issues even, concerning these regulations. You seem to tone down quite a bit the trust we had in these draft regulations not being a threat to privacy.

You raise some very specific points and you offer some solutions or suggestions. When government asked you to participate in the drafting of the regulations or to offer advice, did you make the same suggestions we have just heard?

[English]

Mr. Phillips: No, we were not participants in the drafting of the statute itself. We were consulted on the drafting of some of the regulations, but only with respect to regulation 9.

.1035

[Translation]

Mr. Pomerleau: Is it only after the draft regulations were published that you considered intently regulations number 1 and did you make the same suggestions you have presented this morning?

[English]

Mr. Phillips: I have to give you a two-part answer to that. Our observations on the gun control bill, the statute that was passed by Parliament, were made post facto the drafting and public promulgation of that piece of legislation. We were consulted in the process of the drafting of the regulations and made some recommendations.

Mr. Pomerleau: Are they the same ones you produced today?

Mr. Phillips: Yes.

[Translation]

Mr. Pomerleau: Okay. Thank You.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr.Pomerleau.

[English]

The Chairman: Mr. Ramsay.

Mr. Phillips: Just before you proceed, I don't want you to draw too many conclusions from the fact that we were not participants in the drafting of the legislation. That is not our normal function.

We are consulted from time to time, but not always. It depends on the department and the particular issue about a piece of legislation upon which it may be working. If it is a piece of legislation with a great deal of information collection in it, sometimes we are consulted and sometimes we are not.

[Translation]

Mr. Pomerleau: It is not automatic. In other words, even though these draft regulations will involve personal information collection on individuals, you are not necessarily consulted about their general scope.

[English]

Mr. Phillips: That is correct. I would say it's become more frequently the practice of the departments in recent years to consult the Office of the Privacy Commissioner, simply because so much more of modern administration involves information collection and management processes that have privacy implications. But it is not a requirement on any department.

The Chairman: I'm sorry, Mr. Ramsay.

Mr. Ramsay (Crowfoot): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I wish to thank you, Mr. Phillips, for your presentation this morning. I think your department plays a very important role.

In areas where there's the gathering of personal information to accommodate a right or a privilege by Canadians, I think the government would be wise to consult you and get your expertise and experience on how it can be done without violating the rights of Canadian citizens.

I have a concern under subsection 5(2) of the act itself where the chief firearms officer or the provincial firearms officer, which is called the chief firearms officers under the act, ``in determining whether a person is eligible to hold a licence under subsection (1)...shall have regard to whether the person, within the previous five years...'' and then it lists those considerations.

The first one concerns any criminal convictions or discharges under the various sections of the Criminal Code. To me that is fairly safe, because if there has been a conviction, it means the evidence has been gathered. A court, a competent jurisdiction, has weighed it and made a decision.

Paragraph 5(2)(b) states:

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

Under this paragraph, the chief firearms officer does not have the authority to look into hospital records, doctor's records or clinical records. Yet this is an invitation for a requirement that opens an invitation to the chief firearms officer to gather information in this particular regard. If we compare it with the Criminal Code conviction, if you can't get to the conviction but you can only get to innuendo and perhaps rumour about a criminal act someone committed, that isn't good enough.

.1040

Let me put it this way. It would leave the door open for some of the abuses you have covered in your brief. It may simply be rumour. It may be gossip. It may be malicious. It may be someone seeking revenge. In other words, this asks the chief firearms officer to take into consideration the components of paragraph 5(2)(b) regarding mental illness, yet there is no authority for them to go further and actually examine the doctor's conclusions, examine any treatment or examine any results of that treatment.

Do you have any concerns in that particular area?

Mr. Phillips: I'll try to answer that as well as I can, Mr. Ramsay. If memory serves, from my reading of the evidence given at previous committee hearings, this subject was raised on another occasion. I think the officials from the justice department who were here at the time agreed that this did not convey authority for these people to examine medically confidential records.

There was quite a discussion about the nature of the information these people would be gathering. It was pretty clear - to me, at any rate - from the discussion that ensued at that committee hearing that there was a serendipitous aspect to the information collection process. It was essentially what the firearms officer could pick up. The standards of proof required were not spelled out.

I'm responding to your question in a rather general way here, and I appreciate that, but I think what it does is reinforce the argument I've put forward here this morning - that is, the information that is to be gathered should be rather more carefully defined. The information that could be taken into consideration should be more carefully spelled out. The use and disclosure provisions of that information should be specified in the regulations as well.

I take your point, Mr. Ramsay. I think it's a good one. It speaks to the very broad, undefined nature of the information collecting process involved here, which I think is inadequately protected by privacy laws.

That's the best way I can respond, I think.

Mr. Ramsay: This area causes me a great deal of concern. Some of what I consider to be motivating events that have occurred in our country and that have pushed this bill and perhaps Bill C-17 have occurred at the hands of people who obviously were mentally disturbed. No one, certainly on this committee or whom I have ever talked to, wants to see people who do have a mental illness or a history of mental illness...that would lead to the kind of atrocities that have occurred at the hands of people with firearms, whether it's the Montreal situation or the recent one out in British Columbia. Yet the chief firearms officer's hands are tied. The doctor's hands, to a degree, are tied if he knows that the person he's examining does have a mental illness that could lead to violence and has firearms. He is unable to pass that information on to the authorities.

On the one hand, we have, because of the privacy requirements, the inability on the part of medical practitioners to cooperate with the authorities to ensure that firearms aren't in the hands of people who ought not to have them. On the other hand, we have the chief firearms officers moving in the other direction, picking up tidbits of information that are available only to them. They can't get into the actual files and they can't get that information from a doctor in order to substantiate a decision they have to make. It's a very crucial decision in this particular area.

.1045

So we have a kind of paradox. We have an anomaly, I guess, in this area where, on the one hand, we should not be issuing licences to people with a mental illness, and on the other hand, the chief firearms officer does not have access to the specific records that would say yes or no and give them an opportunity.... Perhaps doctors should be asking if this person is subject to being violent, if there is a risk there. The doctor, and perhaps only the doctor, can make that decision, and yet we're asking a chief firearms officer to make that decision based upon tidbits of information, maybe upon gossip or whatever about whether a person has had a mental illness or is rumoured to have had one.

I see a problem here. I've recognized it since I first saw the bill. I don't know how we can deal with that. Do you have any suggestions?

Mr. Phillips: I'm not sure that requires a response from me particularly, Mr. Ramsay. Like anybody else, I think I would accept the proposition that a person who is mentally deranged and who has a history of violent behaviour stemming from psychiatric problems of one kind or another should not be in possession of firearms. I don't think any reasonable person would dispute that. I presume we are in agreement on that point.

Mr. Ramsay: But how to prevent it -

Mr. Phillips: The process of determining how a chief firearms officer is to come by that information should, I think, be spelled out as well as it can be. I think we are aware of what was said at previous committee hearings on this point.

I'm reluctant to offer a suggestion as to what should be done with an issue as broad as medical confidentiality laws so that firearms officers can obtain more definite information. As a general observation, I think that any information used for purposes of this kind should be as verifiable and as accurate as can possibly be managed and that the person who collects it should be under clearly defined rules as to its application, storage, usage and disclosure.

Perhaps Ms Harris has something she wants to add to that.

Ms Holly Harris (General Counsel, Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada): It seems to me that the regulation-making power in the legislation is probably broad enough to accommodate a provision in the regulation to the effect that in the absence of privacy laws, the federal Privacy Act applies, or in the event of an inconsistency, the federal Privacy Act prevails. If that were the case, if the federal Privacy Act were to apply in the situation you've suggested, there is perhaps provision for a public interest disclosure in the circumstances that you're laying before the committee.

Mr. Ramsay: Thank you. My time is up.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Ramsay.

Mr. Maloney.

Mr. Maloney: Thanks, Mr. Chairman.

You have referred to certain jurisdictions whose privacy laws are not quite the same or as good as the federal privacy regime. Are you aware of any movement by those provinces to tighten up their privacy laws to bring them more in line with those of the federal government?

Mr. Phillips: The general answer to that is that nothing is imminent of which I'm aware - let me put it that way - but that's subject to correction. New Brunswick is currently looking at the possibility of bringing in a new privacy act, which, if they follow the recommendations I made at my appearance before their legislative committee, would be better than what's on the books now. I don't know of any move in any other provinces. I think that's the only province that does not now have one, and that currently has an expanded privacy act under contemplation.

.1050

Mr. Maloney: Do the privacy commissioners get together federally and provincially from time to time? Is this discussed, or could it be discussed?

Mr. Phillips: Yes, we have a fairly active back-chat wire. We meet once or twice a year to talk about problems of this nature, particularly ones that involve split jurisdictions like this. The CPIC system, for example, is one that we've discussed from time to time. So yes, we do talk quite a bit.

Mr. Maloney: Is this an area that perhaps our Minister of Justice or Solicitor General should be involved in as they meet with the provincial people as well?

Mr. Phillips: I think they are. You'd have to ask them for more detail, but I think deputy ministers certainly have met more than once to discuss privacy problems that involve divided jurisdictions. One that comes to mind is the issue of public identification of people with records of convictions of violent criminal behaviour, which is an important topic these days. They have had meetings in an effort to at least develop a standard process for managing that kind of problem.

Mr. Maloney: If we had a common or similar regime within all the provinces and territories and the federal government, would this alleviate a lot of your concerns vis-à-vis this act?

Mr. Phillips: Yes, it would, provided that all the provinces concerned had statutes that essentially set out the same provisions as the federal Privacy Act, and that guarantee people the right of access to their records subject to specific and limited exceptions; an obligation on the controller of the information to maintain its security and confidentiality; and limits imposed upon the disclosure of that information without consent. I think that would solve a lot of the problems, but unhappily, we don't have that situation right now. That is why, both at the previous hearings and again today -

As Ms Harris just said, if the agreements signed between the Government of Canada and the provincial authorities involved contained at least a provision that made all this information collection subject to the federal Privacy Act, or an agreement that could somehow express that objective, then I think we would be getting somewhere. To simply toss it all out there and hope for the best, however, does not seem to me to be the best approach.

Mr. Maloney: You've suggested an interim procedure between the refusal of the licence by the CFO and consideration by a provincial court judge. It was a suggestion for an interim panel of some nature. Do you feel we can do this by regulation, or should it be in the amendment to the act? Do you have any comments on that?

Mr. Phillips: We've had quite a discussion in the office about that. My legal advisers tell me that it is best dealt with through an amendment to the act, but I've challenged them to come up with a suggestion that wouldn't require opening the act for an amendment.

Would you care to add anything to this, Ms Harris?

Ms Harris: I think you'll probably want to address that question to the drafters at the Department of Justice. I can offer the suggestion once again that the regulation-making power in the legislation might be stretched to accommodate such an interim procedure. I note that in the regulatory impact assessment statement, there's an indication of some kind of an advisory committee possibly being set up, but I don't know if the intention was outside the legislation, in the context of regulation, or by agreement. Possibly an agreement itself could be looked at as a vehicle for setting up an independent review or an intermediate review.

Mr. Maloney: This is my final question. In your presentation you had some concerns with regard to gathering additional information about applicants with no attempt to define what this really is. Do you have any suggestions for us that you feel would be appropriate?

Mr. Phillips: ``Additional'' means essentially anything. I'm just uncomfortable with that kind of carte blanche authority. I myself think the word should be struck.

Mr. Maloney: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

.1055

The Acting Chairman (Mr. Maloney): Mr. Kirkby.

Mr. Kirkby: Thank you.

You indicated an issue about keeping prohibition orders on file for life. What was the problem with that?

Mr. Phillips: If a court order stipulates a prohibition valid for two years, say, and it's kept on file for life and may affect an applicant's rights thirty or forty years down the line when the problem that gave rise to that court order has long since disappeared and the terms of the order have long since been complied with, it seems to me, as I said in my statement, what you are effectively doing is taking a two- or three- or five-year court order and making it effective for the life of the person involved.

Mr. Kirkby: Many of these court orders, many prohibition orders, are put in place as a result of criminal convictions. The criminal convictions themselves are kept on file for life. Is that correct?

Mr. Phillips: There is no single answer to that question. All the answers are found in criminal records, statutes, and regulations. But the quick answer is that it depends very much on the nature of the offence. They can be kept anywhere from three to ten years, in some cases, and in some cases for life.

Mr. Kirkby: But are you saying all prohibition orders should be expunged after they are done? Say somebody is charged and convicted with a criminal offence and sentenced to ten years in prison for an armed robbery or an attempted murder and after that they apply for an FAC. Using the argument you suggested, that the time is done, the circumstances have gone away...certainly I would think the criminal charge and any prohibitions would be relevant even into the future, not as a determinative factor but as a factor that could be considered to disallow the applicant to get an FAC. Wouldn't that be an appropriate...?

Mr. Phillips: You make a very good point. What we are saying here is that these things ought to be more carefully defined, because you can look at all kinds of other examples. Suppose you are 17 or 18 years of age and you have a record for a minor theft. At the age of 35, having achieved a good, clean record in the meantime and established a position as a responsible citizen, you apply for a licence so you can own a .22 rifle to go partridge shooting or something. What would be reasonable in those circumstances? I think what this ought to spell out is what kind of court orders and for how long and for what offences, rather than simply this blanket retention involved here.

Mr. Kirkby: But do you not feel any type of conviction or any type of prohibition from owning firearms would be relevant, not as a determinative factor but as something for a firearms officer to consider? I can just see the circumstance now where say at age 16 you have a prohibition order. At age 40 everything's going fine with your life, everything's good, and there's no requirement that this prohibition order be kept. You get an FAC. Then something goes wrong; you do something wrong. The first thing the coroner's inquest is going to say is they should have kept this issue of the prohibition order on record, won't they? That will be the first thing they say.

Mr. Phillips: I don't know that I have anything to add to my earlier observations. I think there's a middle ground here.

.1100

Mr. Kirkby: Okay.

You raised the concern of malicious or false information being brought forward to the CFO that could result in a denial of the FAC. If the matter is appealed and goes before a provincial court judge, and the same false information is presented under oath, is not the remedy, rather than having some different type of test - and these types of thing happen in criminal cases, where false allegations, sometimes very serious false allegations, are brought against an individual - a mischief charge or something like that against the person bringing the false allegations?

Mr. Phillips: I don't think that's the process that's involved, though. To begin with, the answer to that would depend on the nature of the review process itself. If all that is going to happen here is that a provincial court judge asks the chief firearms officer to lay before the court the information upon which the decision was based, and there is not a further summoning of witnesses and cross-examinations, I don't see how your problem is satisfied.

Quite apart from that, simply putting all that information before an open public court means in a privacy context the damage is already done before there is any test whatsoever in a probative nature of the validity of the information itself.

When I make these observations - and I'm sure other people are going to come behind me perhaps, at some point, to make this case - they are made on the assumption that chief firearms officers are going to be as responsible as the people who appoint them can find them. But in my view, that is not a sufficient justification for giving this kind of broad authority and lack of protection.

I think we always have to proceed on the assumption that the people involved are well intended, but that does not, in my view, obviate the necessity to establish in the regulations much more precise obligations on the gatherers and users of this information.

Mr. Kirkby: Thank you very much.

The Chairman: Mr. Ramsay, second round.

Mr. Ramsay: I have just one question that touches on this. I appreciate your comments and your caution in this area. If the citizens of this country have no protection to defend themselves against false and erroneous conclusions drawn up in government documents that impact upon them, then we're at the edge of a slippery slope.

I have had a number of people come to me with that very problem at both the provincial and federal level. For some reason there's something within the department files causing them to hit a brick wall. They don't know what it is, and they can't gain access to it to defend themselves. They hear informally what it is. Then they come to me, or their member of Parliament or MLA, and try to do something about it.

If we are opening the door wider to that type of thing, where people can be falsely accused, and where erroneous conclusions about their character can be made, with no defence, no opportunity for the individual to defend themselves against those accusations -

.1105

I think of a recent case - and I don't want to get into it - where we had an out-of-court settlement based upon that very same principle. Within a government document erroneous information can be gathered that leads to improper conclusions and statements about the character of people. If we do not have an opportunity to defend ourselves against that...and as you say, even though we do, the damage has already been done, simply through the acquisition of that type of information and the conclusions an official arrives at.

So I have concerns in that area. I just put this on the record. I want to thank you for bringing that to the committee as part of your presentation here today, Mr. Phillips.

Mr. Phillips: Thank you, Mr. Ramsay.

Again, I don't have any particular observations to make about that statement, except to say the federal Privacy Act itself is the response of previous Parliaments and governments to that kind of problem. It is an attempt, and on the whole a very successful one, to establish in law people's rights to see the information the Government of Canada contains about them in its files, to provide a method of access and correction and to provide rules by which the government can use and disclose that information. It does not give an absolute right, because there are certain kinds of information the government and Parliament have agreed should not be disclosed to people when they ask to see it, such as some kinds of national security information, some kinds of law enforcement information. If you're investigating a bank heist, you're not going to tell the most immediate suspect how far your investigation has progressed, obviously. But it does establish broad rights.

What I am saying here is that I would like to see those rights, which will apply in the case of gun regulations, insofar as the information is under the control of the federal entity.... I'd like to make sure those same rights apply to the information as it is collected throughout the whole gun control and gun registration system. What we have here essentially is partial observation and reflection of people's rights, but it's not nearly comprehensive enough.

The Chairman: Ms Whelan.

Ms Whelan: Mr. Phillips, I appreciate your comments here this morning. I have to tell you I'm deeply troubled by some of the issues you have raised, one being the discretion it appears is going to be available with the issuance of a licence and the lack of guidelines therefore.

I raise a specific case I had hoped would be corrected by the legislation and the regulations prior to Bill C-68. A gentleman in my riding had applied for the permit to have a handgun to belong to a target-shooting club and he was denied. He was denied on the basis of something that had happened thirty years before. It had to do with the gentleman who was the best man at his wedding. He was a member of a motorcycle club thirty years before.

This same gentleman who was denied the right to join this target-shooting club, and who had had a handgun previously, and who was denied a permit for this, taught the motorcycle course which taught police officers how to drive. They trusted him with their lives. They didn't trust him with the ability to belong to this target-shooting club.

And there was no recourse. His only option was to apply again or to go through the court system, to drag it out into the public. It would take two years and cost him a lot of money. So he chose not to go through the court system.

At that time I was concerned and I raised this with Justice, that I thought there should be some type of review process, because it is very suggestive. It's up to the individual who has that file in front of them.

I'm alarmed to think, with all due respect to Mr. Kirkby, we would allow these things in people's records for thirty or forty years, depending on what type of crime it is, obviously. We do have provisions that allow certain records to be...I don't want to say erased, but that's what happens. After five years you have the right, with certain types of criminal activity, to apply to have your record cleared, for the very basis that our legal system is based on. It's based on rehabilitation. Otherwise our whole legal system doesn't exist, or it has no basis, if we say it just goes on and on.

.1110

There are some members of Parliament who have the ability to sign an FAC but wouldn't qualify to get one. I say that's a little bit ridiculous, that at 30 or 40 something you did when you were 18 or 19 years old should be held against you.

I'm alarmed to think there are no laws to govern privacy in a couple of provinces. I've assured Canadians over and over again that this information will be kept confidential, that this information will only be used by the authorities to ensure that the laws are upheld.

Basically what I'm hearing is that Prince Edward Island and, I believe, the Northwest Territories have no laws whatsoever, so there will be nothing to govern them as to how this information is kept or used.

Mr. Phillips: It will be entirely at the discretion of the people who will be in control of the information.

Ms Whelan: With regard to an independent review tribunal or some type of review - we have that for Canada Pension and for employment insurance - has there been any interaction between your agency and the government about that?

Mr. Phillips: No. I must confess that this is a proposal we have brought to this committee for the first time, and really, based upon my reading, it may well have been evidence and discussion in which you might have been involved.

I'm a very basic fellow. I just think that in a case like this when you're trying to weigh the validity of a great deal of information, some of which may have been gathered by unconventional means, which may not have been subjected to the ordinary test of accuracy that a probative process in a court would do, sometimes two heads are better than one. Second, just as your constituent did, try to find a process of review of a contested decision that, first, does not involve the public disclosure of all of this information and, second, does not force the appellant into the expensive, time-consuming and difficult process of going to court.

So there could be some sort of interim review process, an ombudsperson of some sort to look at all this and just have a good second look, maybe a small panel that would not be expensive, would not be time-consuming, but would bring to bear the good common sense of responsible and reputable people in looking at this. That's all I'm suggesting.

The Chairman: Thank you very much, Mr. Phillips. Thank you, Ms Whelan.

I'd like to thank you, sir, for once again agreeing to come before our committee, albeit a subcommittee of the standing committee. Your cooperation is always very much appreciated, both yours and your officials. Thank you again. You've made some very interesting remarks, and I'm sure we'll be considering those very carefully.

Unfortunately I will not be here for the questioning of the officials. I'll be turning the chair over to Mr. Maloney. I have to go back to my riding as something has come up. But I want to thank you, sir, for being here.

We will now adjourn the meeting while we set up for our next meeting with the officials of the justice department.

Return to Committee Home Page