[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
Thursday, February 6, 1997
.1124 
[English]
The Acting Chairman (Mr. Maloney): We're now resuming our hearing on the regulations for the Firearms Act. We have with us representatives from the Department of Justice, Mr. Richard Mosley, Mr. Michel Plouffe, and Mr. William Bartlett.
Thank you for coming back, gentlemen. Do you have any type of presentation at this stage? I know you've been here before. Do you have anything to add at this time, or are you open for questioning?
Mr. Richard Mosley, Q.C. (Assistant Deputy Minister, Criminal Policy, Department of Justice): Mr. Chairman, I do have some opening remarks I would like to begin with. Then we would be pleased to respond to questions from the committee members.
.1125
I will keep these remarks brief. We're here again today to answer your questions and, as I indicated, we'll be pleased to do so. Your hearings have been extensive and comprehensive. You've heard from a wide range of witnesses and interests and I know there are a number of concerns that need to be addressed.
We have been following your proceedings closely. I'm sure you've seen many colleagues from the department sitting in on the hearings as they've progressed. We've heard the concerns and recommendations expressed to you by the witnesses.
Many of these involve issues that have been the subject of extensive consultations with many of the same groups that have appeared before you. A great effort has been made to deal with them to the greatest extent possible, given the scope of the regulation-making powers under the act and the overriding requirements of the act itself.
The proposed regulations now before you are in many cases the result of a balancing of conflicting interests and concerns. We know that some improvements can be made, however, and we look forward to your recommendations. The statutory scheme to which these regulations add a required level of detail is complex. Thus, the regulations are necessarily complex as well.
During our consultations, we've become aware that there is a significant level of misunderstanding as to the requirements of the statute, the meaning and effect of the proposed regulations, and the interaction between the statute and the regulations. This interaction adds a further degree of complexity and results in greater difficulties in understanding the scheme and in particular the role of the regulations.
Many of the concerns expressed to you reflect that level of misunderstanding. This poses a challenge for the Department of Justice and our partners in the firearms control program. It emphasizes the need to enhance our efforts at communications and training. The testimony presented to you will help us to focus our efforts in these areas.
Many of the apparent difficulties in understanding how the act and the regulations will work will be largely resolved by the forms, which will tell applicants for licences - and the other documents required by the act - what information they need to supply, what steps they will need to take, and what requirements they will have to fulfil. We will of course be consulting on the content of those forms and other documents.
Administrative procedures will also guide those responsible for administering and enforcing the legislation and the regulatory scheme.
We have also been developing a multifaceted communications program that will include packages of materials specifically directed at the diverse interests that have appeared before you. There will, for example, be programs that will draw together in a plain language form the matters of particular interest to and impact on, among others, historical re-enactors, museums, the movie and theatre industry, outfitters, target-shooters, hunters and businesses, including such specialized businesses as the armoured car industry.
These programs will explain to those groups what parts of the act and the regulations are most relevant to their activities, the manner in which these provisions will affect them, and how they will be able to comply with those provisions.
We will also continue to work with these groups to ensure that the regulations are as responsive as possible to the concerns that have been expressed to you.
Your recommendations will help to guide us in that effort. We are already working on some ways to adjust the proposed regulations to deal with some of the problems highlighted during your proceedings. In the coming days and weeks we will be analysing the briefs and testimony presented to you and the recommendations you will make and we will be proposing changes to the Minister of Justice to recommend to cabinet.
In certain key areas the response to the concerns will have to be addressed in regulations that are not part of the package presently before you. For example, we propose at this time to eliminate for the most part the impact that the scheme would otherwise have on historical re-enactors by adding the reproductions of flintlock and wheel-lock firearms used by them in their activities to the definition of antique firearms. This will have, we believe, the effect of exempting these reproductions and thus the re-enactors who use them from the licensing, registration, and cross-border provisions of the Firearms Act. We expect, subject to confirmation when the next package of proposed regulations is approved, that this will be part of that package of regulations to be made under the Criminal Code rather than the Firearms Act.
.1130
Some of the concerns of the movie and theatre industries, which involve the handling of replica firearms, will be addressed to the greatest extent possible in additional proposed Firearms Act regulations that will be part of the package to be tabled later this year.
In other areas, the response will be largely based on administrative procedures designed to minimize the impact of the act and the regulations in areas where particular problems have been identified. We believe, for example, that many of the potential difficulties cited by the museums can be addressed in that way.
The concerns expressed by aboriginal witnesses involve enormously complicated legal and policy matters. We will be studying the issues they have raised with regard to the proposed regulations, in particular the aboriginal adaptation regulations, but the questions involved raise many layers of complexity.
The regulations are, in any case, only a starting point. The minister has made a commitment to work towards participation by aboriginal communities in the administration of the scheme on their lands, and we will be working on an array of program approaches to that end.
The proposed fees have been the subject of much attention from witnesses. Perhaps the issue that has occasioned the most concern in that regard is the proposed $50 fee for the import of firearms by non-residents without a licence. This fee will have an impact on the activities of target shooters, outfitters and others - although not, it's to be noted, the historical re-enactment community once the issue of reproductions has been addressed.
We are studying the implications of some of the suggestions made, such as that a fee would be payable only once a year. We are prepared to recommend to the minister that this issue be re-examined. Of course, any change in this or other proposed fees has to be consistent with the cost-recovery framework for this program and would have to be examined by other affected departments and considered and approved by cabinet.
With that introduction, Mr. Chairman, we would be pleased to respond to your questions and to deal with those areas of most concern to you.
The Acting Chairman (Mr. Maloney): Thank you, Mr. Mosley.
Mr. de Savoye.
[Translation]
Mr. de Savoye (Portneuf): I would like to thank Mr. Mosley, Mr. Bartlett and Mr. Plouffe for coming here this morning.
Mr. Mosley, it's interesting to see that some possible solutions are already coming to light. Yesterday, we heard from representatives of the ammunitions and firearms industry and I indicated to the Chair that I would be interested in hearing your views on the representations made to us. These industry representatives explained to us that they had already put in place rather comprehensive security measures and they wondered if it might not be possible to adjust the regulations to their specific needs.
What do you think should be done? Do you think that the regulations can be adjusted? Should these particular industries be involved in more extensive consultations? I await your answer.
[English]
Mr. Mosley: May I say at the outset that we had involved that industry in the consultations, although late in the process. Their interests were brought to our attention in the early fall, I think, and they attended one or more meetings in September.
By that stage it was difficult for us to respond to their particular concerns, and quite frankly we did not know enough about the nature of the industry. We have since taken advantage of an offer to visit and examine on the site the operation of one particular company. I think that has identified for us a list of concerns that do need to be addressed. We could get into the specifics of those, but perhaps I could respond to your question, Mr. de Savoye, by saying we do recognize there is a need for adjustment to the regulations based on the information that has come to our attention, and we will be proceeding to develop those changes for consideration by the minister.
.1135
[Translation]
Mr. de Savoye: To shed some light on some of the other concerns the committee has, are you considering adding sections in the regulations which would address the specific needs of certain industries, such as the one we are talking about, or will these issues be addressed more or less throughout the regulations?
[English]
Mr. William C. Bartlett (Counsel, Canadian Firearms Centre, Department of Justice): Certainly we will be addressing some particular issues relevant to certain communities. We will see what we can do about the concerns the museums have expressed about display requirements, for example. Although there is a provision in there that should permit a good deal of flexibility in dealing with the circumstances in which museums display firearms, we can look at expanding and clarifying that and providing procedures that will fit the manner in which museums possess and display firearms.
We will be looking at prescribed purposes in the licence regulations that will specifically deal with concerns that have been raised by two of the witnesses who appeared before you yesterday concerning business activities they carry out involving prohibited items. We quite accept legitimate business activities and we will provide for those in the prescribed purposes so they can carry on with their businesses.
We will be looking at the storage and transportation regulations for businesses to see where accommodations have to be made, the sort of issue you raised concerning the witnesses who appeared yesterday with, they believe, adequate and perhaps superior security measures in place. If the current provisions would impede the application of the current security measures they now use, we could look at the sort of formula we have used with, for example, the museum community, where we provide some sort of flexible instrument for the approval of security measures by a chief firearms officer. The particular suggestion of that industry that they be self-regulating is not something we can deal with in regulations, but we can find some other way to provide the same flexibility for them in circumstances where they are clearly meeting the necessary security and safety standards.
Those are just some examples of areas where accommodations can be made and where we will certainly be looking to ensure there is sufficient flexibility in the regulations to deal with the different conditions faced by different industries and user groups.
[Translation]
Mr. de Savoye: The representatives of outfitting operations conveyed to us their very legitimate concerns, particularly with regard to their foreign customers. Among other things, they worry that the regulations will discourage their clientele from coming to Canada to hunt. At foreign shows, competition among various countries is fierce and outfitters are wondering if the regulations will leave them on an equal footing with their competitors.
Mr. Mosley, you indicated that you are willing to show some flexibility, but could you expand on this to help the committee with its recommendations?
[English]
Mr. Mosley: I think one of the biggest concerns had to do with the $50 fee when they came across the border, importing the firearm, which could extend for as much as 120 days. For the client who wanted to come in the spring and in the fall, that would be of little assistance.
.1140
The conclusion I think we have reached, subject again to further discussion with the affected department, Revenue Canada in customs, and approval by ministers, is that the $50 fee should extend for a full calendar year. So the customer who wants to come in during two or more seasons would not be affected adversely.
I'm not sure we can go much further than that. To the extent that we can find other ways to ease the administrative burden, that's something we are very much interested in working with the industry to address. We will be continuing those efforts in the coming months.
Mr. de Savoye: One of their preoccupations was to streamline the process, especially at the border. Can you expand on this issue?
Mr. Mosley: I've been very interested in that. In fact, we have undertaken already discussions with our American counterparts with a view to standardizing and streamlining the procedures at the border. It also affects Canadians who wish to travel to the U.S. for purposes related to gun shows or competitions and who also encounter some difficulties when they cross the border going to the United States.
This is an area we are working on with the American authorities with a view to standardizing the procedures, reducing the paperwork and the administrative burden, and facilitating the cross-border flow of legitimate firearms interest.
[Translation]
Mr. de Savoye: Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[English]
The Acting Chairman (Mr. Maloney): Mr. Ramsay.
Mr. Ramsay (Crowfoot): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I thank our witnesses for coming. I hope the committee can avail itself of your services as often as we feel we need you.
First of all, we understand we have 30 sitting days to examine the regulations and make recommendations before they become effective. Is that true? Would you tell the committee for the record what that process is? What happens at the end of the 30 sitting days?
Mr. Mosley: At the end of the 30 sitting days the regulations will go back before the special committee of council at some point in time - and it's not fixed in the legislation - with or without changes, although we expect with substantial changes. At that time they would be formally made by the Governor General in Council.
Mr. Ramsay: If I could explore that a little bit further, at the end of the 30 days, which I think is February 21, you'll have the recommendations from this committee. What happens from there at the end of the 30 days? Do the regulations come into effect at that time?
Mr. Mosley: No. These are still draft regulations in the sense that they have not been made formally. They were taken to special committee of council for approval before they were tabled in both chambers of Parliament.
Mr. Ramsay: What is the special committee of council?
Mr. Mosley: It's a cabinet committee that makes recommendations to the Governor General. It's the formal process of approving regulations. If they're approved by that committee they are then made formally and take effect on such date as is fixed in the order.
What will happen is that the recommendations from this committee, and any recommendations that come from the department or other concerned departments, will be considered by ministers and a decision taken as to what changes should be made to the regulations. They are then formally approved by the special committee of council and would take effect at such date as they prescribe.
Mr. Ramsay: We heard testimony before the subcommittee that the department has not conducted an industry impact study. In other words, the Department of Justice, or the Government of Canada, has not done a study to indicate the economic impact upon the firearms industry and all its components, to indicate what that detrimental impact will be - in other words, what it's going to cost the outfitters and the sport shooters and the gun clubs, our Olympic and World Cup shooting teams and so on. Is it accurate that no industry impact study has been done by the department?
.1145
Mr. Mosley: I'm not sure what such a study would consist of. We have certainly asked the industries to tell us, based on their knowledge of their own industries and their experience, what that impact will be from the regulations, from the fees. To that extent I think we have examined that issue, and that has been one of the considerations taken into account in determining the final form of the regulations. But I'm not sure I understand what you would mean by an ``industry impact study'', beyond asking those industries to tell us what they believe the impact to be.
Mr. Ramsay: Of course an impact study would do exactly that: what will be the negative economic impact, if any, on the nine or ten groups that have appeared before us and told us very clearly there will be a negative impact on them as a result of the regulations if they are not amended or changed.
So we do not know what it will cost the industry if no study has been done. There is only the information that has been provided to us through the witnesses who have appeared before us. So the justice department cannot advise the committee of any ballpark figure for the cost this will have economically on the various users of firearms.
Mr. Mosley: I think at this point it would be entirely speculative. You would have to make assumptions about changes in behaviour; for example that with the outfitters there would be a deterrent effect from a $50 fee. I believe there was some evidence before you from the outfitters to the effect that the average cost to someone who hires their services was in the neighbourhood of $2,000. But to draw a conclusion about the effect a $50 fee would have on those numbers really requires some experience after the fee comes into effect. I think we're not at a stage where we can predict that there will be one or more persons choosing not to come to Canada at that stage because of that $50 fee.
Mr. Ramsay: I can understand and appreciate that. Nevertheless, it seems that this bill, with very broad implications across Canada, is being brought into effect when we do not fully understand the economic costs, either at the front end.... And there are discrepancies. I hear different stories about how much it's going to cost the government to implement this, how much it's going to cost the individual firearm owner, how much it's going to cost the taxpayer.
We have not been able to get any information on what it's costing to process an FAC today. I'm concerned about that. I'm concerned about the cost factor. If we could get some idea of what it would cost to process an FAC, then we would have a general idea - perhaps not a specific idea but a general idea - of what it's going to cost to licence the 3 million to 6 million gun owners who, it is estimated, will fall under that requirement.
I am concerned and troubled over the fact that we're bringing in this bill and nothing is very certain about the economic consequences of the bill.
Just to add to that...and I want to apologize to the committee because I too have to leave after my time is up, because I too have to catch a plane at 1 p.m.
We have heard from these industries. You've named some of them: the museums, the re-enactment groups, the guides and outfitters, the gun clubs, including the Olympic and World Cup shooting teams, the sport and hunting groups, the armoured vehicle industry, the firearms manufacturers, the film industry, and the performing arts, which includes parades and pageants. They have all indicated to us in response to questions that their handling of firearms has not created a threat to public or individual safety. Yet some of them have indicated, including the re-enactment groups, that this could severely affect their ability to continue. In other words, it could cause them to become extinct, as Mr. Feltoe said about his group.
.1150
I have concerns that the bill is not being directed in the area of firearm usage that is a threat, that is causing a threat. I don't know if you'd like to comment on that, but after sitting through all of the days of hearings on the bill and on the regulations, I'm leaving the committee with the feeling that here are groups that are very well disciplined in the way they have handled firearms, including Brink's and Loomis and some of those groups. They are not the motivation, it appears, behind the creation of the bill, yet they're simply going to be impacted and affected, some perhaps more than others, in a very significant way.
I'm deeply troubled by that. It's an all-encompassing bill and is sweeping people into it who are not a threat to public safety or an individual's safety as a result of the manner in which they have handled their firearms in the past.
Mr. Mosley, do you have any comment on that?
Mr. Mosley: With respect, Mr. Chairman, I'm not sure whether that was a statement. There are many matters in there that I could indulge myself by commenting upon but really don't go to the issue that is before the committee: these regulations.
I'm not sure if there's a specific question you wish me to address that concerns the regulations, but the policy behind the legislation was debated at length in both Houses of Parliament, and the act authorizes regulations to implement that policy. What we've attempted to do is draw to the best of our ability a set of regulations that has that effect.
With the greatest respect to Mr. Ramsay, and I do appreciate his sincere concern about these issues, I don't think it's appropriate at this point for me or my colleagues to enter into a debate about that policy. We are here to assist, if we can, with these regulations.
The Acting Chairman (Mr. Maloney): Mr. Mosley, I would agree with your position.
Mr. Ramsay, your time is up. Thank you, and have a safe trip back home.
Mr. Kirkby.
Mr. Kirkby (Prince Albert - Churchill River): I have no questions. I just want to thank the witnesses for all of their hard work and efforts to create a set of effective and fair regulations. So thank you, and I appreciate your efforts.
Ms Whelan (Essex - Windsor): Mr. Chairman, I have a couple of questions.
I appreciate your opening comments. Having listened to the witnesses for the past two weeks, I have probably a lot of questions. I don't have them all in front of me, but what stands out most prominently today is the last testimony we had from the privacy commissioner.
Regarding the concerns he has raised - I know you haven't even had a chance to see his brief, and maybe it's premature to even ask these questions - there are a couple of areas that have no privacy laws: Prince Edward Island, and I believe he said the Northwest Territories. There are other areas where their privacy laws don't deal with the dissemination of information; they deal only with access to.
I'm very concerned, because we've been assured over and over again that privacy would be protected, that information would be confidential, would be handled confidentially, kept confidentially. I wonder if we can expect further regulations on that area or if this is it. Where are we on that?
Mr. Mosley: Perhaps I could start off and then invite a comment from my colleague.
I was briefed on the evidence of the privacy commissioner. We are very concerned about these issues as well. To ensure that we are adequately addressing them in the work that's under way, we have, for example, brought onto the steering committee from the federal departments involved in this a representative from the privacy commissioner's office. We have seconded to the team that is building the new system a person from the commissioner's office who is familiar with these issues, and whose job to a great extent will be to identify problems as this work unfolds. To the extent that we can avoid the issues in designing the system, we will do our utmost to do that.
.1155
With regard to whether we can address it in the regulations, perhaps I'll turn to Mr. Bartlett.
Mr. Bartlett: We have examined these issues with the help and advice of experts on information and privacy law within the department. They advise us that in those areas where there is no applicable provincial law, the federal law would apply to those who are performing functions under the Firearms Act. So there will be law in place to govern matters of information and privacy.
In areas where there is provincial law in place, there will be questions of concurrent law. There are rules that determine when the provincial or the federal law will apply. It's a complex matter, but it's an area there's a fair amount of experience in. We're sure there will be adequate laws in place in every jurisdiction, in terms of both access to information and protection of information through privacy law.
The regulations do not try to set out a separate code. It's an enormously complex area, and there is legislation in place at the federal level and in most of the provinces dealing with both of those matters. We feel this legislation is adequate to ensure that privacy is protected and that access to information is controlled but available for appropriate purposes.
In terms of some of the other suggestions the privacy commissioner has made, there may be administrative ways of ensuring that the kinds of protection he would like to see are there. We certainly have been working on various processes to ensure that this is the case. We wouldn't at this point be proposing that changes be made to the regulations because we feel that protection is better afforded by taking the law that's in place now and applying it.
Ms Whelan: Has any thought been given to the other recommendation he made for an independent tribunal or review process?
Mr. Bartlett: I'd have to examine that proposal in depth, but I don't think there would be authority under the regulations to interpose an administrative process in the appeal process set out in the act for an appeal of refusals, revocations of licences, authorizations, and so on. There may be some administrative ways we can try to put in place to ensure that insofar as is possible, there is some vetting of the kind of information that's at issue when there is a refusal or revocation, so as to avoid someone being unnecessarily embarrassed in an appellate proceeding. But I don't think that in the regulations we could interpose that kind of process, and I don't think there would be authority in the regulation-making power to do it in any case.
We will, however, be working with the provinces, provincial officials, and other federal departments that are partners in this program to put together a number of working groups, perhaps even formal committees established administratively, to deal with national standards in a variety of areas.
One area we have been looking at for some time is a committee composed of federal and provincial representatives to deal specifically with questions of information, protection of that information, access to that information, and a variety of other matters that ensure that information and records are available for the purposes for which they're needed to enforce the scheme, but personal privacy is protected. We have already had some discussions with the provinces, looking towards establishing that sort of committee on either an ad hoc or perhaps a formal basis - ``formal'' administratively, but not in the regulations.
.1200
Ms Whelan: I'm a bit concerned, though, that if the only recourse is going to be through the court system, there is going to be no privacy. If the only recourse, if you are denied, is to go to the court system, right away you are open to public scrutiny, you are open to the freedom of the press and the information in the media.
With all due respect, I have a case going on in my riding right now with regard to a sexual assault. The only thing not in the paper is the victim's name. It's clearly identified, based on all the facts that have been given. That's the only thing that's not in the paper.
So it's a bit troubling to me that we talk about privacy and we talk about the ability to protect and the ability to prevent these types of situations, but the way it works right now it's just not there. If the only recourse is to go through the court system, and at a cost, I'm just suggesting perhaps something was missed here.
Mr. Bartlett: I don't think any of the provincial officials involved are insensitive to the privacy concerns of people who are affected by a refusal or a revocation. On an administrative basis, I'm sure we can ensure there is enough exchange of information that those who are affected can perhaps remedy a misunderstanding or false information before it gets to the point of refusal or revocation, or after that process, before it becomes necessary to take the matter to court.
These officials are experienced in dealing with these sorts of issues. They have experience in dealing with the courts on these issues. I think I can assure you they would not want to go into court on a matter where their information was not, in their view, sound.
On an administrative basis, that can be done. I don't think the kind of process the privacy commissioner suggested as a formal process would be appropriate, but that's certainly something we can look at, perhaps on an administrative basis.
But certainly attempts will be made by everyone involved to ensure, before any matter goes to court, that it is necessary to take it to court and that the information on which the matter is proceeding is as accurate and soundly based as is possible. After those kinds of processes have been used, yes, the judicial process itself is an open and public process, but there is certainly no desire on the part of anyone simply to head to the judicial forum on inadequate investigations or information.
The Acting Chairman (Mr. Maloney): I appreciate your comments that you are certainly open to some changes. We look forward to providing you and the minister with our full report within a reasonable period - very quickly.
I have a quick question. You referred to how some of the concerns may have to be addressed in the regulations under the Criminal Code. What timeframe are we looking at for that? When will these be drawn and proceeded with?
Mr. Bartlett: Those regulations will be developed and drafted and consultations held in the course of the next several months. They will be pre-published for notice and comment probably at least sixty days before they are actually made. It's likely that will take place in the fall of this year.
The regulations to be made under the Criminal Code will have to be in place when the new scheme is implemented. The minister has indicated that should be in early 1998, so we would expect the pre-publication and the final notice and comment process will probably take place this fall. But there will certainly be consultations with those groups most directly interested in the course of the next several months.
.1205
The Acting Chairman (Mr. Maloney): Thank you, Mr. Bartlett.
Are there any questions arising out of that last question?
Ms Whelan.
Ms Whelan: I'm just curious, Mr. Maloney. I'm assuming that throughout the process next week Mr. Bartlett will be available to the committee. Or will he not?
The Acting Chairman (Mr. Maloney): We intended to give Gérald instructions on Tuesday for the draft report.
Mr. Bartlett, I assume you could be available.
Mr. Bartlett: I'm available at any time to provide information, answer questions and give briefings to any member of the committee or to the committee as a group, at the committee's desire.
Ms Whelan: I have other questions that will arise as we go through the different sections and I just wanted a clarification as to what would be the best process.
The Acting Chairman (Mr. Maloney): Thank you, Ms Whelan.
Mr. Bartlett, could you make yourself available for our next meeting? We'll stand adjourned until Tuesday morning at 10 a.m. in room 208, West Block.
Mr. Plouffe, Mr. Bartlett, and Mr. Mosley, thank you very much for your attendance and your comments this morning. We very much appreciate it.