Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Legal and
Constitutional Affairs
Issue 10 - Evidence
OTTAWA, Thursday, December 4, 1997
The Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, to which was referred Bill S-5, to amend the Canada Evidence Act and the Criminal Code in respect of persons with disabilities, to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act in respect of persons with disabilities and other matters and to make consequential amendments to other Acts; and to examine the regulations pursuant to Section 118 of the Firearms Act, met this day at 10:55 a.m.
Senator Lorna Milne (Chairman) in the Chair.
[English]
The Chairman: Honourable senators, I see a quorum. I call the meeting to order.
The clerk has passed around a letter received this morning from the Canadian Bankers Association in response to Senator Gigantès' question of last night.
Senator Lewis: I move that the committee move to clause-by-clause consideration of Bill S-5.
The Chairman: Is it agreed, honourable senators?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: As the evidence came forward from the different groups, it was obvious that there are concerns and amendments in some specific areas.
Shall clauses 1 to 9 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Carried.
Shall clause 10 carry?
Senator Jessiman: I move: that Bill S-5, in clause 10, be amended by:
(a) replacing lines 13 to 41 on page 7, with the following:
"accommodate those needs"; and
(b) renumbering subsections (8) and (9), pages 7 and 8, as (3) and (4) and any cross-references thereto accordingly.
To explain that, we look to clause 10 and deletion of the words "considering health, safety and cost." The latter part of the amended clause would read as follows:
...it must be established that accommodation of the needs of an individual or a class of individuals affected would impose undue hardship on the person who would have to accommodate those needs.
The Chairman: I should clarify for committee members that that means deleting subclauses (3), (4), (5), (6) and (7) which includes all references to the Governor in Council and the requirement that the Human Rights Commission conduct public consultations.
Senator Lewis: That would all be taken out. What about the provision for regulations?
The Chairman: Regulations would be left to the tribunal.
Senator Jessiman: The courts would determine these other matters in each individual case, rather than being limited to issues of health, safety and cost.
Senator Gigantès: I have not been given any evidence, even by the banks with this answer today, that they cannot fix things with cost. Did they bribe the gentleman with the moustache to shave his moustache? No, they did not. If they had offered him $10,000 he probably would have shaved it.
No objection has arisen that does not come under health, safety or cost. All objections could be classified under those three provision, and I do not see why those three should not remain.
Senator Jessiman: I am doing this on behalf of Senator Cogger. Unfortunately, he had to be in Montreal today. However, I understand the reasoning behind the proposed amendment.
He thinks, and I agree, that by leaving in those words, it is limiting what the courts can consider. We will cause ourselves more problems by leaving them in.
The Chairman: Is there further discussion on the amendment?
Shall clause 10, as amended, carry?
Senator Jessiman: Yea.
Some Hon. Senators: Nay.
Senator Kinsella: Madam Chairman, would you record that I have abstained? I do so because I am an ex officio member of the committee. My colleague Senator Carstairs is also an ex officio member. There is a tradition that ex officio members vote only when both members are present. I am a committee member; however, I abstain from the vote because of that tradition.
The Chairman: The "nays" have it. There is one abstention. The amendment is defeated.
Shall clause 10 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Carried.
Shall clauses 11 to 15 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Carried.
Shall clause 16 carry?
Senator Kinsella: I wish to move an amendment to clause 16. A copy of my amendment has been circulated to members of the committee.
This amendment seeks to include the prohibited grounds of discrimination that are described in section 3(1) of the act, which lists the prohibited grounds of discrimination that apply to section 16 concerning the gathering of information and special programs. This was concurred in by both the representatives of the Canadian Human Rights Commission and a number of witnesses.
I had a discussion with the minister and with her officials about it. Unfortunately, I could not be here when the minister appeared. The committee met with the permission of the Senate, while the Senate was in session regarding an important piece of legislation.
If required, I shall read the proposed amendment.
The Chairman: We all have a copy before us in both English and French. We will include it in the record as an appendix to the proceedings.
(For text of Senator Kinsella's amendment, see Appendix, p. 10«A»:1 )
The Chairman: Shall clause 16, as amended, carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Shall clauses 17 to 22 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Shall clause 23 carry?
Senator Jessiman: On behalf of Senator Cogger, I move:
That Bill S-5, in clause 23, be amended, on page 11, by replacing lines 31 to 37 with the following:
"(2) Paragraphs 40(5)(a), (b) and (c) of the Act are replaced by the following:
(a) occurred in Canada and the victim of the practice was at the time of the act or omission either lawfully present in Canada or, if temporarily absent from Canada, entitled to return to Canada; or
(b) occurred outside Canada and the victim of the practice was at the time of the act or omission a Canadian citizen or an individual lawfully admitted to Canada for permanent residence."
The Chairman: We are looking this up in the act now rather than in the bill. In effect, this would remove clause (b) in the act, which means that it removes the concept of victimless crime.
Is there any discussion?
Senator Gigantès: I am opposed to it, Madam Chairman. When we were discussing this issue before, we said that in times of downsizing, and so on, there may be someone who feels discriminated against but is afraid that by protesting openly he may be the target of the downsizing rather than someone else.
Senator Jessiman: I can only speak as the witnesses yesterday spoke. There is similar legislation in other jurisdictions, and the banks have had tremendous problems working with the Human Rights Commission. They gave us examples of cases which happened nine years ago, and five of the nine cases they mentioned had still not been settled. For those cases that have been settled, workers do not know whether or not they will work. This amendment is here for your consideration.
Senator Lewis: The amendment seems to make another amendment to the act. Are we not just dealing with the bill?
The Chairman: Are you contending that this goes outside the scope of the bill into the act itself, Senator Lewis?
Senator Lewis: Yes. I am against the amendment, at any rate.
The Chairman: I suspect that you are right in that it does go outside the scope of the bill itself. It is probably not in order, but I will call for a vote on the amendment.
Shall the amendment carry?
Senator Jessiman: Before you do that, Madam Chairman, I have been told that this amendment was referred to legislative counsel who feels that it is a proper amendment to be considered.
The Chairman: In that case, I withdraw my earlier remarks.
Senator Gigantès: Yes, but legislative counsel have been known to be wrong.
The Chairman: Is there any further discussion on this amendment? If not, shall this amendment carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Nay.
Senator Kinsella: I abstain.
The Chairman: There is one abstention. The motion is negatived.
Shall clause 23 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Shall clauses 24 to 51 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Shall the preamble carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Shall the title carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Shall the bill, as amended, carry?
Senator Gigantès: Before we do that, at a previous meeting we saw that in certain parts of the bill the French text and the English text did not completely concur. Have those terms been fixed?
The Chairman: We received a letter of explanation from the department because we specifically asked about that. I believe that everyone received a copy of it. It states that although the translation is not precise word for word, it still has the same meaning in French as it does in English.
Senator Gigantès: How about the term "membre instructeur", which does not exist in the English version?
The Chairman: This was dealt with in the letter. Perhaps we could get a copy of this letter to Senator Gigantès.
Senator Gigantès: I still do not like that term because it has reflections of the French judicial system. I suspect that it is some lawyer who was trained in France who did the French drafting.
The Chairman: I should point out that this has been brought to the attention of the officials in the department. Since this bill is now starting in the Senate and will then go to the House of Commons, I intend to pass on to the House of Commons this concern about the translation. There will be another chance to have it looked at in the other place.
Senator Gigantès: Look at the garbage we get from the House of Commons.
The Chairman: I have no comment on that.
Senator Gigantès: This is where these things happen. I would suggest that they translate "member or panel conducting the inquiry" word for word instead of using "le membre instructeur". It says here "instructeur", one member. It is not the same. It doe not have the same meaning.
The Chairman: Rather than sitting here at the last moment doing an on-the-spot translation of a bill, perhaps, Senator Gigantès, you might want to discuss this at third reading in the chamber.
Senator Gigantès: And propose an amendment?
The Chairman: If you so desire.
Senator Beaudoin: Is there anyone here from the Department of Justice?
The Chairman: Yes, there is. Would someone come forward and defend this wording?
Senator Beaudoin: They should have their day in court to defend their translation. After that, we will pass judgment.
The Chairman: Stephen Sharzer will join us at the table and help us with this problem.
Mr. Stephen Sharzer, Senior Counsel, Human Rights Law Section, Department of Justice: We did consult with the drafter on this. He feels very strongly about his opinion. He has used different terminology which reflects the same concept. At the beginning, instead of designating a member or a panel, he is designating a "membre instructeur". On page 18 of the bill, dealing with proposed new section 49(2) of the act, he has done something which is a little different from the English. He refers to designating three members, and then says that the provisions which follow, that is, sections 50 to 58, apply to these three members as well. So, even if you use the singular "membre instructeur" later on in the French, this provision makes it clear that the reference really is to one or three members. It is a different technique; it is not literally the same.
Senator Beaudoin: If we were to use the French text, it would be much easier.
[Translation]
No, but we are talking about a French version.
Senator Gigantès: Instead of saying "membre instructeur", why can't we say "membre qui préside"?
Senator Beaudoin: "... désigner un membre pour instruire la plainte...", and then you say: "... désigner un membre pour instruire la plainte...". What paragraph are you referring to?
[English]
Mr. Sharzer: That is subsection (1) of proposed section 49. Subsection (2) states:
...désigner trois membres, auxquels dès lors les articles 50 à 58 s'appliquent.
That is where he has adopted the different technique. I think you are right that it would probably be more convenient in the English to use that style, but the effect is exactly the same whether it is in English or in French.
Our drafters are very insistent on not translating literally. They both listen to the concept and each writes at the same time.
Senator Beaudoin: I have no problem with that. It is not a question of translating every word; it is to translate the idea in both French and English. That is the way to draft a bilingual statute.
I have no problem with that. However, it is plural in 49(2) and singular in 49(1). Is "le membre instructeur" the president, the Chair, or what?
Mr. Sharzer: In English, proposed section 49(2) refers to there being a panel of three members. This is the particular provision which says that instead of having one person inquiring into a complaint, you may have three. Proposed section 49(2), in English, says "panel of three members". The French simply says "three members".
Senator Gigantès: I have no objection to that. It is "membre instructeur" which troubles me.
Mr. Sharzer: That is a separate question.
The Chairman: I have some problems with this. Once we start changing from singular to plural in one section, we have to do it all the way through the bill. I prefer not to do this off the top of our heads in a situation like this. This is something that should be looked into. It may well be that the committee will later instruct me to add this as a substantive matter when I am reporting the bill in the Senate as an instruction, if we can, to the House of Commons and the department to look again at the translation.
Senator Gigantès: Senator Beaudoin and I could provide an appropriate alternative to "membre instructeur" with no problem. Here we have someone from the Department of Justice telling us legislators that he or she insists. It is we who insist, not the officials.
Senator Beaudoin: To be practical, I would be inclined to leave it as it is. After all, both versions are official. If there is a problem in court, the judge will decide. If the idea is not adequately translated, they will come back before this committee. This is not the first time we have a problem on French and English.
Senator Gigantès: That is precisely my point. We should not have those problems.
Senator Beaudoin: I do not think we live in a perfect world.
Senator Gigantès: Expensive time of the tribunal should not be spent because a particular drafter insists, as we are told, on his or her version.
Mr. Sharzer: I would not insist on anything. If the committee believes that there is better language, we are pleased, either at this or another stage, to assist in finding that language. I had simply hoped to clarify the intent.
The Chairman: I must say that I would prefer to take it up at another stage.
[Translation]
Senator Losier-Cool: My question is the same as when we discussed this in committee. I am talking about section 50(1), which refers to "the member or panel conducting the inquiry." Can there be more than one person here? If that derives from section 49, we can conclude that there can be.
[English]
Mr. Sharzer: Based on the proposed new section 49(2), yes, it would be the plural as well. That is the way it was designed.
[Translation]
Senator Losier-Cool: Is this how you translate "panel"?
[English]
Mr. Sharzer: That is correct.
Senator Gigantès: You express in French "the collective panel" into the singular member.
Mr. Sharzer: That was the preference of the drafter in this case.
Senator Kinsella: On a question of parliamentary practice, on every bill that comes before Parliament this issue can be raised. Is there not a practice, if indeed not a procedure or mechanism, whereby the clerks examine bills to ensure that the English and the French correspond?
Ms Heather Lank, Clerk of the Committee: No.
The Chairman: We do not do that in the Senate.
When I report the bill in the chamber I would like to include our concern about the translation of "membre instructeur".
If that is agreeable to the committee, perhaps we have discussed it enough.
Shall I report the bill as amended to the Senate?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Senator Gigantès: On division.
The Chairman: A number of concerns about the operation of the Canadian Human Rights Act were brought to the attention of this committee. Those concerns were outside the scope of this particular bill.
The committee was therefore pleased to hear from the Minster of Justice last night that she has committed to conducting a broader review of this legislation. As we approach a new millennium and celebrate the fiftieth anniversary of the Universal Declaration on Human Rights, it is time for a comprehensive assessment of the act and its ability to promote and protect human rights into the next century.
This is the statement that I intend to read when I report the bill. With your concurrence, I will also raise our concerns about the French drafting, if that is the will of the committee. If your prefer, I will put that right into the report itself. Is there agreement in that regard? There were other things that were brought up.
Senator Gigantès: Madam Chairman, on the English version, we have "the member or panel" shall inquire into the complaint. On the French side, we have "le membre instructeur." Does that mean that two members of a panel may disagree with "le membre instructeur?" This is not just a frivolous question.
The Chairman: No. You are quite right.
Senator Gigantès: Is it the panel or is it the person who conducts the inquiry who has the discretion? In the French version, it appears that it is one person. In the English version, it appears that it is all three.
The Chairman: The bill has been passed. We are through our clause-by-clause consideration of it. I need some feedback from the committee as to precisely what I should say in my report about this bill. I have mentioned the one thing that I would like to say, with your agreement, and I would also like to add our concerns about the drafting of the particular term "membre instructeur" wherever it appears in the bill, if the committee so agrees.
Senator Gigantès: On this point, could you say that an official of the Department of Justice said that the singular term "membre instructeur" could mean a panel of three? That is disputable.
The Chairman: I do not know if I will lay all this on Mr. Sharzer's shoulders, but I can say that we have concerns as to whether the single term also covers the plural. Are we agreed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Senator Doyle: On that particular subject, if you will raise the question of the French translation, you might also consider that we spent more time arguing over the use of English and the definitions of words, in particular the word "reasonable." The people who draft regulations and who either approve or disapprove of the word "reasonable" might favour us with the information about which dictionary they are using, because "reasonable" is and has been for a long while a word comfortably used in our language. It seems now it is out of favour.
I think that is wrong and the drafters of the legislation should be made aware that their choice of words can sometimes lead us to longer than necessary arguments.
The Chairman: They lead us into "unreasonable" arguments.
We will not be meeting again before I report this bill. I would ask the committee to give me authority to decide how to make this report to the chamber. I intend to cover how we dealt with clause-by-clause passage of this bill, our discussion about the operation of the Canadian Human Rights Act and the French drafting, as Senator Gigantès mentioned, and the use of the word "reasonable," as mentioned by Senator Doyle.
Senator Lewis: I would so move, Madam Chairman.
Senator Gigantès: I would like to say that we are inverting our role vis-à-vis the House of Commons. Usually, the House of Commons passes bills which raise concerns about language, definition, et cetera. We, in the Senate, who are supposed to indulge in sober, second thought, are the ones who nit-pick and ensure that the language is better. Now we will pass a bill over which we have concerns regarding language -- about an important word such as "reasonable," important in the minds of many witnesses -- and we will ask the House of Commons to do the work we normally do.
The Chairman: That is a very valid point.
Senator Lewis: I have one other point. I hope you will not use the word "translation."
The Chairman: No, you are quite right. It is not a translation. It is a separate drafting process.
Senator Gigantès: It is the French draft.
The Chairman: I should point out, too, that the word "reasonable" was not in the bill. It was recommended that it should be in the bill.
Senator Gigantès: I object because "undue" is stronger than "reasonable" in clause 10. "Undue" is sufficient there.
The Chairman: It is not in the bill. Therefore, at this point I would prefer not to talk about "reasonable." We will talk about the French drafting and about our concerns with the operation of the Canadian Human Rights Act. With your permission, we will leave it at that.
We will proceed now to the second part of our agenda, which is examination of the regulations pursuant to section 118 of the Firearms Act. We have witnesses from the Department of Justice. Please proceed.
Mr. Gordon Parry, Director, Policy and Programs, Canadian Firearms Centre, Department of Justice: Honourable senators, we are pleased to be here today to speak to the final package of key regulations required for initial implementation of the Firearms Act, comprising six sets of different regulations. They deal with registration certificates; import and export by individuals; shooting clubs and ranges; gun shows; special authority to possess in certain situations; and public agents.
These are the last set of regulations under the Firearms Act that we will be presenting prior to implementation.
[Translation]
As you are aware, the minister tabled an initial package of 11 sets of regulations in late November of last year. Those regulations dealt with a wide range of issues, including: licensing; storage, display and transportation requirements; Aboriginal adaptations; and fees. In addition to the new regulations which have been tabled, certain significant additions to four of those earlier sets of regulations have also been tabled as part of the current package.
The Firearms Act and all the supporting in regulations will come into force on October 1, 1998. The new Canadian firearms registration system will be tested and certain advance work such as the loading of business inventories will be done between June of next year and October 1, the reference date for coming into force.
[English]
I should like to turn now to the response to this committee's report on the regulations which were presented to you in 1996.
This committee held hearings on the first package of regulations and rendered a report in February of this year. A formal response to that report was requested in October, and Mr. Richard Mosley, Assistant Deputy Minister of Criminal Law and Community Justice at the Department of Justice and the project leader for the firearms program, replied by letter on November 10. In his letter, Mr. Mosley, addressed the impact of the recommendations made by the committee in its report. We would be pleased to answer any questions that honourable senators may have in regard to the committee's report or the response, but I should like to make brief reference to two issues dealt with in that report.
A number of the committee's recommendations dealt with the application of the new firearms control program to aboriginal peoples. Officials of the Department of Justice have been consulting with aboriginal people on a national, regional and local basis for the past two years, and since February of this year we have met again with a number of aboriginal organizations concerning the implementation of the firearms legislation, for example, the James Bay Cree, the Council of Yukon First Nations, the Makivik regional government, the Confederacy of Treaty No. 6; the Métis Settlements General Council; the Assembly of First Nations, the Inuit Tapirisat of Canada and the Mohawks.
[Translation]
We have also been taking concrete steps to address the particular needs of Aboriginal people, such as translating the Canadian Firearms Safety Course into at least two Aboriginal languages, Inuktitut and Oji-Cree. We have also been working with our provincial partners to develop approaches to ensure that the Firearms Program is implemented in Aboriginal communities in a manner that is sensitive to their culture, traditions and particular circumstances, including mechanisms to involve them in the administration of the legislation.
[English]
The committee also recommended that the department consult further with the members of the theatrical, film and television industry in regard to their concerns about the impact of the legislation on them. Further consultations were planned and have been held. One of the new sets of regulations before you now is the product of that ongoing process. The Special Authority to Possess Regulations focuses on the particular needs of that industry in regard to the manufacture and lending of replica firearms. Fees have also been adjusted to respond to the concerns of that industry, and the new fee categories applicable to the various movie and theatrical supply activities are set out in the schedule to the Fees Regulations, which is part of the package that you have before you today.
I should like to turn now to the new regulations, the 1997 regulations. The six new sets of regulations comprise a smaller package than was presented to you last year but they deal with a number of key issues, including registration. I will summarize briefly the highlights of these regulations.
The Registration Certificates Regulations provide for some of the supporting detail concerning how firearms will be registered. The information which owners will have to provide in order to register their firearms will be dealt with in the form proscribed by the minister. I have a preliminary draft copy of that form for the registration of long guns and two samples of stickers which we are considering to identify individual firearms. These have been distributed to members of the committee and we would be happy to discuss them with you.
The primary focus of the regulations is on those firearms which do not bear a serial number that distinguishes them from other firearms, which we estimate to be a maximum of 15 per cent of long guns possessed on commencement day, October 1, 1998.
The registration of long guns by individuals will involve a mail-in process. The additions to the Transfer Conditions Regulations, which are part of the package before you, will require that the registration information be verified, but only upon the first transfer occurring after the phase-in of registration is complete on January 1, 2003.
Concerns have been expressed that business inventories and new imports should be confirmed at the point of registration so that the registration information on new firearms entering the market is already verified, and a proposal has been made that appropriate requirements to deal with this be added to the Registration Certificates Regulations.
[Translation]
The Importation and Exportation Regulations applicable to individuals will not come into effect until January 1, 2001, which is when the provisions of the Firearms Act which they support will be brought into force. Between October 1998 and 2001, Canadian firearms owners will have an opportunity to obtain their licences and have their firearms registered. Streamlined border processes will be developed for implementation in 2001 that will minimize the impact of the new statutory requirements. Until 2001, the entry of firearms will be governed by a modified customs tariff provision which will be similar to that which now applies to individuals entering with firearms.
[English]
The Shooting Clubs and Ranges Regulations set out standards and requirements for the approval by provincial ministers of all shooting clubs and ranges, including long gun ranges, as required by the Firearms Act. The Gun Shows Regulations will require all gun shows to have an approved sponsor, and the regulations set out requirements for sponsors and exhibitors. The Special Authority to Possess Regulations, as noted, deal with the manufacture and lending of replica firearms used by the movie and theatrical industry. The Public Agents Regulations will govern the storage, recording and disposal of firearms by police forces and other public service agencies.
[Translation]
Firearms groups that will be affected by these regulations have questioned some of their provisions, and proposals have been made to deal with those concerns. We will be pleased to discuss those concerns and the changes which we propose to make in response to them, but in general it can be said that the changes that will be required do not appear to be substantial.
[English]
I should like to turn now to some additions that we have made to the 1996 regulations.
[Translation]
The regulations which I have described deal entirely with issues not covered by the package of regulations tabled in 1996. The development of this further package has, however, made necessary certain significant additions to the regulations tabled last year. Those significant additions have been tabled for review in addition to the new sets of regulations.
[English]
The changes which have been tabled deal with only three new issues. The first is a verification requirement applicable at the point of first transfer, which is an addition to the Transfer Conditions Regulations. The second deals with the shipping of firearms in the mail and involves additions to both the storage and transportation regulations applicable to businesses and those applicable to individuals. The third issue involves some new fee items.
The additional transfer condition would require firearms owners who sell or give a firearm to someone else to have their registration information verified by an approved verifier who will, in general, be a volunteer at the community level. The proposed verification requirement would not apply until after January 1, 2003, although voluntary verification will be encouraged and facilitated.
Concerns have been expressed that the requirement for verification should come into effect on initial implementation -- that is, on October 1, 1998 -- for restricted and prohibited firearms in order to ensure that the current public safety standards applied to the registration of these firearms are maintained. The proposals have thus been made for appropriate changes that would deal with these concerns.
Of note in the changes to the Fees Regulations is a reduction in the business licence fee applicable to Legion halls. This fee is reduced from $50 to $25. The availability of a business licence will enable Legions to register the firearms they display to the organization rather than to individual officers. The reduced fee reflects the important role which members of the Legion have played in our history.
[Translation]
It will be a pleasure to answer questions by honourable senators. We are entirely at your disposal.
[English]
Senator Gigantès: Many witnesses, especially aboriginal people, told us, when last we had hearings on this issue, about the difficulty of finding a firearms registration officer. There was a small group from Labrador who said it would mean many days of trekking on snowshoes to go and get him. Their concern was who would administer this and who would be able to interpret these regulations, or even understand what they say, or understand a form such as the one I have in my hand which you presented to us.
If understanding is difficult, citizens will be contravening the law because they do not understand what they are expected to do or because it is not practical to get help.
Have you dealt with this concern?
Mr. Parry: We believe that we have addressed all of those concerns, senator. It is important to state at the outset that the responsibility for administering this federal legislation, as other federal legislation, lies primarily with provinces and territories. In our discussions with provinces and territories in terms of the development of the regulations, and indeed the legislation which preceded it, we have identified a number of issues relating to aboriginal participation in the legislation. Part of those are found in the Aboriginal Adaptation Regulations which you saw last time, and part are identified in a number of ongoing administrative issues which we are discussing with chief firearms officers at this time.
The issue of access to firearms officers is one of those issues. We believe that there is opportunity for provincial firearms officers to identify a number of firearms officers who are resident in or easily accessible to aboriginal communities, and that that will deal in large measure with the access issue.
We are looking at the translation of a variety of our forms and materials into aboriginal languages. I mentioned translation of the Canadian Firearms Safety Course into Inuktitut and Oji-Cree. We are looking at those two languages in addition to four others as potential ones into which we will need to translate a variety of our material.
In the interim, we have looked at publications in aboriginal languages. We will be looking at electronic media presentations on aboriginal networks, radio spots and that sort of thing to ensure that the people with whom we are dealing have an understanding of their obligations and an ability to participate actively in the program.
Senator Gigantès: One of our colleagues, a senator, was saying that a particular regulation, as he understood the text, meant that if he went hunting in his canoe, his gun had to stay locked until he actually saw his potential target. He said that by the time he unlocked the gun, the target would be gone. If a senator interpreted the regulation that way, there is something wrong in the way it is expressed.
Mr. William C. Bartlett, Legal Counsel, Canadian Firearms Centre, Department of Justice: Senator, the rules regarding transportation of firearms are generally expressed. They must be expressed so as to apply to transportation in general. The situation you describe would involve not transportation of the firearm but the actual act of hunting. If a person is travelling by canoe down a river and as he turns a bend in the river and sees a moose which he is allowed to shoot, then he is in the act of hunting. Transportation is intended to cover taking the firearm from where it is stored to the place where it can be used.
The regulations have been fairly generally phrased because they must cover a multiplicity of situations. There will be a great deal of explanatory material which explains how these general standards apply in particular situations that will be available to everyone who must comply with them.
Senator Gigantès: Several aboriginal witnesses said they were afraid that someone who is not one of them, who is still green behind the ears, would arrive in their communities with a different interpretation of the rule with regard to hunting and transportation, and that therefore a hunter could get into trouble.
Mr. Bartlett: Programs are being developed to train approximately 15,000 people who will be involved in either administering or enforcing the legislation, including police officers. Extensive training material has been developed and the officers enforcing this legislation will be well trained in how to apply it.
Senator Gigantès: I am in agreement with the legislation. I am simply repeating concerns from people who will be affected by it and do not want to get into trouble because they or a policeman might misinterpret a regulation.
Ms Carolyn Saint-Denis, Senior Policy Analyst, Policy and Programs, Canadian Firearms Centre, Department of Justice: We understand that there are some difficulties with the definition of "transport" and with the distinction regarding being in use for hunting in our general safe storage regulations. This comes up for both aboriginal and non-aboriginal hunters. There is some conflict with provincial regulations with regard to hunting and the use of vehicles. A canoe counts as a vehicle in those circumstances.
We have undertaken to clarify this before these regulations get finalized early in the new year. We will be dealing with the chief firearms officers of all the provinces to bring some clarity to those sections, both in the general safe storage regulations and, as they might be applicable, in the aboriginal adaptations.
Senator Gigantès: Madam Chairman, could we be informed of the result of these activities so that we can know whether the concerns of Senator Adams, for example, have been addressed?
The Chairman: Will you inform us of that?
Ms Saint-Denis: Certainly.
Mr. Parry: You made reference to one of your colleague senators not understanding part of the regulations. I suggest that he is in good company. Many people find this difficult to understand.
In that context, we have taken very much to heart the need to develop an effective communications program, rendering in plain language what is in the act and the regulations. We are quite active now in a number of those areas. We have a variety of publications which we would be happy to make available to you. We have a 1-800 line which has, to date, fielded approximately 25,000 inquiries about various aspects of the act and the regulations. We have an active program planned for media. Presentations will be undertaken in the coming months as we go toward implementation.
We understand the difficulty of making the statute accessible and we are working hard on that process.
Senator Gigantès: Will you review your form while you are about it? I would have problems filling it out.
[Translation]
Senator Losier-Cool: Thank you, Madam Chairman. My question is both brief and simple. It is about storage fees in museums. Have there been any changes since 1996? I remember that, when we studied the bill, the Canadian Museums Association was somewhat concerned about museum storage fees in the smaller regions. I am not talking about the War Museum in Ottawa, but about provincial museums.
[English]
Ms Saint-Denis: The fees are the same as they were when submitted in 1996. Museums with less than 20 firearms will be charged a fee of $40 for a three-year licence; $60 for 20 to 49 firearms; and $150 for 50 or more firearms. Those licences are for three years, which is the only exception in all the business licensing rules.
[Translation]
Senator Losier-Cool: You have talked about the legions and then about film and the arts. I was wondering whether there had been any changes in museums. Is it those?
Ms Saint-Denis: Yes.
[English]
Senator Pearson: As one who owns no firearms, I have not paid too much attention to coming into force and things like that. Could you remind me of the time line for the coming into force of the various parts of the act and regulations?
Mr. Parry: All firearms users need to have a licence by 2001. All guns need to be registered by 2003. We are putting the regulation and the statute into effect on October 1, 1998. We are making available, for pre-registration purposes, from June 1, 1998, a large part of the system which will permit businesses to register and have their inventories verified so that they will be better able to carry on their full activities once the legislation comes into full effect on October 1.
Ms Saint-Denis: The import-export clauses of the bill, 35 to 42, will not be implemented until 2001, and neither will the import-export regulations which are in the package before you today.
Senator Pearson: The time line is so long. Has there been any evidence that people are trying to accumulate more guns before the regulations come into force, particularly bringing them in across the border?
Mr. Bartlett: If anything, senator, the opposite may be true. Witnesses have testified that firearms sales by dealers have fallen off in the last several years since Bill C-17.
Ms Saint-Denis: There have been several amnesties held during the past few months in major police departments and unprecedented numbers of firearms have been turned in. We expect that many people who are less interested in firearms will get rid of them before the system comes into effect.
Senator Lewis: When we held hearings on the previous regulations, the theatrical and film industries expressed some concern, as you mentioned earlier. Have those concerns been dealt with in the special regulations?
Ms Saint-Denis: Yes, they have. In the Special Authority to Possess Regulations, which are before you, there are provisions for manufacture and temporary lending of replicas. Essentially, they revolve around a simple record-keeping system so that we can keep track of things that are lent out over the course of time or manufactured for the movie industry.
They have expressed satisfaction with these regulations. They would rather have no regulations, of course, but as they must have some, they are happy with these.
Mr. Bartlett: We have adjusted the fee categories as well. One of their concerns was that the fee, which is quite high, reflects use of the full range of prohibited weapons, including fully automatic prohibited firearms. We have created an intermediate category for those that simply use handguns or prohibited weapons of another nature.
Senator Lewis: That leads to another question. What is a firearm? Is a piece of wood shaped like a rifle considered a firearm?
Witnesses from the theatrical industry told us that sometimes they use phoney guns. These are not replicas, as replicas are more accurate copies. How do these regulations affect the use of such a prop?
Mr. Bartlett: A replica firearm is something that is not and never has been a firearm but either exactly resembles or resembles with near precision a firearm. Our interpretation of that definition is that it exactly resembles or with near precision resembles a firearm on relatively close examination.
There are other provisions in the Criminal Code that deal with the use of imitation firearms, which would be a broader category. Something that might look like a firearm at some distance would be an imitation firearm, and there are offence provisions for use of an imitation firearm.
Those devices that look exactly like a bullet-firing firearm become a prohibited device under the Criminal Code. That responds to concerns about the use of replica firearms in criminal offences. They may not be able to fire but they can certainly be used to intimidate people and scare them quite thoroughly. There have been incidents where police have responded to a call and chased someone who had what appeared to be a firearm. Shots have been fired and both perpetrators and, on occasion, innocent bystanders have been hurt and/or killed in the course of such events. That is the type of incident to which the provision is responding.
Senator Lewis: You referred to a device that has never been a firearm. What is the situation with a device that was a firearm many years ago but is now so dilapidated as to be no longer functional?
Ms Saint-Denis: Dilapidation would not be the key. A device that is no longer a firearm because it has been rendered totally inoperable and could never be restored to a firing state is called a deactivated firearm. There are no controls on that other than the offence provisions. If you use one in a robbery, it is considered an imitation firearm and you would be subject to penalties.
The movie industry does use deactivated firearms. They use starter pistols and blank firings. These things are not considered to be firearms. They use replicas and real firearms, as well as air guns of less than 500 feet per second capacity, which are deemed not to be firearms as well. They have a complex set of tools at their disposal, some of which are subject to a lot of regulatory controls and some of which are not. It was -- and still is, to some extent -- confusing for them.
Senator Lewis: I am glad to hear that. I now feel safe with what is in my basement.
Senator Moore: I wish to follow up on Senator Pearson's question about the dates and what is happening. You said that effective June 1, 1998, there will be a pre-registration period.
Ms Saint-Denis: The system will be ready. It will be like a pre-test, if you like. Businesses will be able to begin entering their inventories and get them verified. In order for them to do any business as of October 1 when the law comes into effect, they must be on-line. We want to iron the bugs out during the first few months.
Senator Moore: As well, you mentioned the years 2000 and 2003. What is the significance of those dates?
Ms Saint-Denis: By January 1, 2001, all individuals and businesses that have firearms must have licences. Also on January 1, 2001, the import-export sections of the act -- that is, proposed sections 35 to 42 dealing with individuals whether Canadian or non-residents crossing borders -- will come into effect, as will the regulations on import-export procedures.
January 1, 2003, is the date by which all firearms in the possession of individuals must be registered. The verification procedure for long guns then comes into effect. That basically means that at any point after that, if you transfer a long gun, the registration information will have to be verified.
Senator Moore: By January 1, 2003, all guns must be registered?
Ms Saint-Denis: Yes, and by January 1, 2001, all people who have guns must be licensed.
Senator Moore: I see.
Mr. Bartlett: With regard to what comes into effect on October 1, the act does not comes fully into effect on that date. The period between June and October will be an administrative period of loading business inventories. The act will not come into force at all until October 1, 1998.
Senator Gigantès: I heard you say that sales are reported to be down. Could that be because sales have gone underground, as many gun-loving witnesses warned would happen?
Ms Saint-Denis: Some of that may be involved. Obviously, there will be a settling of ownership of firearms before the requirements come into effect.
The age structure has changed and there are many fewer new entrants into the shooting sports, especially hunting, because of the age range of the population now.
Senator Gigantès: Are you saying that young people do not hunt as much?
Ms Saint-Denis: Yes. They are not entering at the same rate as people used to. This is happening not only in Canada but also in Australia and New Zealand. It is a sociological pattern that seems to be developing.
There is also a point at which you experience a hardware saturation. There would have to be marketing strategies done now to create new types of firearms that people might want to buy. People already own a lot of firearms and they are not at the point yet where they have to turn them over. Firearms do not wear out very fast. Consequently, there has been a general settling of the market.
Senator Gigantès: I should like to ask about the sticker you gave us. Is this something that will be put on guns?
Ms Saint-Denis: Only on firearms on which the serial number is not sufficiently unique to distinguish it from any other firearm, which includes less than 15 per cent of firearms.
Senator Gigantès: Is this a genuine example of that sticker?
Ms Saint-Denis: Yes. It may be flattened out a bit more in terms of its shape, but we are looking at the approximate size and shape.
Senator Gigantès: My 16-month-old grandson would scratch it off.
Ms Saint-Denis: Once placed on a metal surface, it must be left for 72 hours. It contains a special glue which settles on the metal. I would have to call on technical experts to explain it.
Senator Gigantès: I will put it on the microphone and the next time we come here I will see if it has settled.
Senator Doyle: Did you say in your overview at the beginning that the effect of the changes did not appear to be substantial?
Mr. Bartlett: The reference was to the sorts of changes that witnesses in other places have talked about and concerns that have been expressed to us. The kinds of changes that we are looking at making in response to various questions that have been raised about the regulations before you do not appear to be substantial.
Senator Doyle: Are you speaking only of these changes or of all the changes; past, present and contemplated?
Mr. Parry: I refer only to the changes that others have suggested to us based on these regulations as tabled. The changes that we consider to be substantial -- for example the changes to the 1996 regulations -- are included in the package because they were in fact substantial and we felt that, in view of the way clause 118 of the statute was written, you needed to have the opportunity to look at those again.
It is only those things that have been suggested to us on the basis of these regulations, which are, by and large, not substantial.
Senator Doyle: I am not a hunter. However, I come from a family of hunters and many of our friends are hunters. I wonder how they would respond to a volume of, if not substantial, certainly numerous, changes in the law governing the owning of guns. We all want guns to be controlled.
Senator Gigantès: They would shoot you.
Senator Doyle: No, they would laugh, and when people start laughing at the law, we are in some danger.
Do you know many people, outside the department, who would be aware of what you have done in the way of change? I know you are planning more in the way of communications, but this should get you a degree in "firearmology".
Mr. Parry: I do not want to be misunderstood. I am not suggesting in any way that either these regulations or the ones you looked at last year are insubstantial. They are significant and have a significant impact on the people who are affected by them.
We are quite aware of the issues with firearms owners concerning the volume of the regulations, the interpretation of them, and how they should be applied. Our primary concern is with compliance by firearms owners. We are absolutely convinced that the vast majority of firearms owners are completely responsible and honourable persons and that they intend to comply with the statute.
We consider it part of our duty to ensure that we have communications and interpretative materials, media presentations, language translations and anything else that we can to assist people who will be affected by both the statute and the regulations to become fully aware of their obligations, and we want to work with them to that end.
I share your concern, but we believe that what we are doing, particularly on the communications front, is, on balance, proportional to the effect and breadth of these regulations.
Senator Doyle: I share your opinion that the audience at which you are aiming these regulations is one that is responsible and anxious to do the right thing. It is overwhelming that having a licence to own a gun is far more complex than getting married, having children, or doing just about anything else in society.
Senator Jessiman: I am a city person and I am not a gun owner. However, I had occasion to go out to the country with a number of senators when this bill was first proposed. I was amazed at the number of people who were so much opposed to it. They have the attitude that it is the country versus the city. We heard from a number of farmers over three or four days. Hundreds of people turned out in the middle of the day.
What have you done to allay their concerns? A number of them told us, en masse, that they just were not going to abide by this. They have guns in their families. They have never abused them in any way. They are responsible but they really believe that we are making them criminals if they do not follow this law, and they intend to defy it.
You know that as well as I. What have you done since that time to make you believe that these people will comply?
Mr. Parry: I share your observation about urban and rural. I think there is another element, that being male versus female. The vast majority of people who use guns are men, not women.
We have tried to address that by working closely with the people affected. We have partnerships with the chief firearms officers from the provinces and a variety of other groups, some of whom would never count themselves among our friends in terms of developing these regulations. That and the communications efforts which I mentioned before have served to allay some of the animosity that we have seen.
We work extensively with a user group on firearms appointed by the minister. It comprises a range of interested persons including farmers, collectors and outfitters. Those people have been actively involved in all stages of this process.
The communications efforts have been showing some effects recently. As I indicated, we have received in the order of 25,000 calls on our 1-800 line. We have attended 20 gun shows in the past year where we met face to face with gun owners and users. We have encountered much of the animosity to which you make reference. We find that it often relates to a misinterpretation, which, frankly, is aided and abetted by some of our opponents who are apt to encourage some of that misapprehension.
Once we explain the operation of the act and demonstrate by showing people what is written in both the statute and the regulations, much of that animosity dissipates. We expect that, like with many social changes -- things involving smoking, use of seat belts, et cetera -- there will be resistance in the beginning. However, over time, with proper explanation and information materials, people will see that, at worst, this is a reasonably minor annoyance compared to the overall benefits that we think the legislation will bring.
It will be a long-term process. The contacts, the communications programs, the explanations and such that we are attempting to make are the primary tools for overcoming those problems.
Senator Jessiman: The aboriginal people in particular who spoke to us said that they would not abide by this legislation. I know that you have done some work in that regard. Are you getting them on side? Do you feel you are making some headway with them? They seem to me to be objecting more than even the farmers.
Mr. Parry: In an area that is quite complex, my personal view is that the aboriginal component is the most complex of all. Many of the politicized aboriginal groups with which we have dealt are particularly concerned about their constitutional and treaty rights and see the Firearms Act as a potential infringement thereon. We do not think that is the case but they contend that it is an infringement.
We are certain that at some point we will end up in court with an aboriginal person contending that either the act or the regulations are a violation of their section 35 rights or a treaty right.
At the same time, however, there are other elements in aboriginal communities who recognize the benefits that the Firearms Act can bring in terms of thwarting criminal activities, dealing with suicide -- which has been endemic in many aboriginal communities -- and dealing with accidents in respect of firearms. The benefits that accrue from what we are attempting to do have broader community benefits for those areas.
We think that over a period of time we will make some inroads into that problem. We have no doubt that we will end up in court. I do not know that that is in any way avoidable. Perhaps avoidance of it is not even desirable. If we are correct in our strong belief that we are not infringing constitutionally or on treaty rights, a court challenge will serve to solve that issue and we can move on from there to dealing with other issues. We think it will work out over time.
Senator Jessiman: I understand that there are approximately 650 registered First Nations. Is any one of the First Nations on side with you?
Mr. Parry: The short answer is no. However, we would not expect that. The administration of the statutes in provinces and territories is the responsibility of the provinces and territories. Those jurisdictions would be working with the aboriginal communities toward compliance by those communities.
Senator Jessiman:Are all the provinces on side?
Mr. Parry: As you know, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba and the Northwest Territories have indicated that they do not intend to administer the Firearms Act. We are looking at developing alternatives for administration in those jurisdictions. It is still an open question as to whether they will maintain that position once the decision of the Alberta Court of Appeal on the reference made by Alberta has been made public. We will see where that goes.
It is certain at this stage that we will be administering the Firearms Act in an equal way across Canada for all Canadians.
Mr. Bartlett: There have been a number of discussions with various First Nations about getting involved in the administration of the legislation in their communities. That is not to say that they have climbed on board fully in support, but there have been indications that a number of First Nations are not only willing but anxious to work with the legislation.
Some elements have found support. The James Bay Cree, for example, have generally supported the safety course requirement. They have been anxious to ensure that they can deliver the safety course in their communities. They find value in it.
[Translation]
Senator Losier-Cool: To follow up on the question by my colleague Senator Jessiman about firearms training for young people, are education departments open to a school-level firearms training program?
I am a teacher from New Brunswick, a province where statistics show that many people own firearms, and many, many accidents are caused by firearms. If my memory serves me, it is the Canadian province with the second highest number of firearms accidents. When I was teaching 16-, 17-, and 18-year-olds, many of them would get the flu during the hunting season. Sometimes, there were accidents. I think we talked about this with the minister of the day.
[English]
Mr. Parry: That area is somewhat controversial. We have had some sporadic participation in firearms education in schools. It seems to depend on local initiatives sponsored by local people.
At our level, the Coalition for Gun Control has a broad range of individuals, some of whom you have undoubtedly met. One member, a paediatrician and an active member in the Canadian Association of Paediatricians, is strongly of the view that we should not be teaching about firearms in the schools.
We have, within our Canadian firearms safety course group, an initiative to explore that particular area. We intend, over the next 18 months or so, to continue to explore the possibility of mounting courses in schools.
I think that in New Brunswick there is at least one jurisdiction that has some education programs. Terry Burns, a member of our user group on firearms, has made some mention of programs in his area. We know that in British Columbia there is at least one area that has programs. In the Yukon Territory, they have formally incorporated that into some of their curricula. However, it is not widespread and it is still somewhat controversial. We must approach that issue more slowly than quickly.
Senator Moore: When the committee last dealt with this matter, I asked whether the Cree community was consulted by federal officials in the development of the legislation as it pertains to the Cree and their traditional way of life and harvesting of wildlife.
There was a comment made by the witness that, unfortunately, the recommendations that we proposed were the same as those put before the committee with regard to the legislation. At that time we were told not to worry, that under section 117(u), regulations would be adapted to meet with our concerns. The proposed regulations have come forward and, unfortunately, the same inconsistencies and conflicts exist.
Have the Cree and other aboriginal stakeholders been consulted? What portion of their concerns have been addressed to their satisfaction?
Mr. Parry: Yes, they have been consulted. The James Bay Cree and the Council of Yukon First Nations, in particular, have modern treaties and have been the source of much of our attention. We have met with them. We think that the Aboriginal Adaptation Regulations, which was a part of the group of regulations which you saw last year, address many of their concerns. There are some modifications which we expect to make to those regulations to deal with some technical issues which will take into account further of their concerns.
We do not deceive ourselves that this will make them active supporters of what we are attempting to do. However, we have worked conscientiously with them to meet our treaty obligations in respect of consultation with them. We have addressed most of their concerns in terms of either the adaptation regulations you looked at last year or the proposed changes that we expect to make to them before they become final.
Senator Moore: Do all the dates that you mentioned earlier with regard to pre-registration and the coming into effect of the act on October 1, 1998 apply to aboriginal peoples?
Mr. Bartlett: Yes.
Senator Moore: You said that you will make further amendments to the Aboriginal Adaptation Regulations?
Mr. Parry: Yes.
Senator Moore: Given the fact that it is less than one year before the act will come into effect, when do you do that and how do you do it? Would it involve further consultation? How will Canadians know what is expected of them, the timing of it, and how they can prepare themselves?
Mr. Parry: We expect all of the regulations to be formalized by the latter part of January.
The discussions that we have had to date with all the participants in the development of this package have convinced us that there will be no surprises in the final regulations. In terms of our discussions with aboriginal peoples, the changes that may be made will not be significant. If they were, they would have to go through the parliamentary process before we could proceed with them.
We think that the changes that have been discussed with the James Bay Cree, among others, to deal with their concerns are acceptable to them and are not significant enough to require that they be brought back through the parliamentary process.
Senator Moore: On a scale of 1 to 10, what portion of their concerns do you think have been satisfactorily addressed? Taking into consideration what is in writing now and what you plan by way of further amendments by the end of January, will you be 50 per cent there, 75 per cent there? You said that you do not expect aboriginal people to be supporters of the legislation, but how far do you think you have moved the ball?
Mr. Parry: We could characterize the objections of aboriginal communities in about four areas. The area of fees is a general concern and we are unable to do anything on that, so it will remain a concern.
With regard to the involvement of the community, we think we have some options in order to address some of the operational concerns and concerns of aboriginal communities in that area.
Senator Moore: What does that mean?
Mr. Parry: The degree to which the community will be involved will depend on how the provinces address this matter.
Senator Moore: Do you mean in terms of enforcement or participation by registering?
Mr. Parry: I mean having firearms officers available in aboriginal communities. That will depend in large measure on the degree to which we can obtain provincial concurrence to work with aboriginal communities to make available local people in respect of the administration of those areas.
Senator Moore: The last time, there was some concern about that element in the province of Quebec. I believe that the Quebec police did not want to take on this responsibility and you were trying to find another way to do it. Has that been resolved?
Mr. Parry: That has been a concern. There has been a change in Quebec on that issue. This week, the chief firearms officer from Quebec is touring six communities in Northern Quebec with a view specifically to looking at how they can work with those aboriginal communities in terms of the administration of the Firearms Act.
It is equally fair to say that there has been some ongoing tension between the Sûreté du Québec and some of the Mohawk communities. That probably stems from the relatively recent events in Quebec and perhaps it is to be understood. Clearly, they are approaching the business of administering in aboriginal communities seriously. I am quite encouraged by recent developments.
Senator Moore: You said there were four areas. You spoke about fees and operations. What were the other two areas?
Mr. Parry: There was also the degree to which the communities would be involved. There was some concern about how we defined "elders" in the statute. We think that we have come up with an accommodation on that which will improve the situation.
There was a concern raised that people who are beneficiaries of treaties should not be required to make a declaration that they are participating in traditional hunting practices. We believe that we have an approach to dealing with that problem as well.
I hesitate to assign a percentage to it. We will see whether we will be able to make some of these changes only after we receive the actual drafting of them and are able to examine them fully. However, we are modestly confident that we have addressed the things that we can address. The changes will not address all the issues. Fees will still be a problem and we expect that to be one of the issues on which we will end up in court.
Senator Gigantès: I wish to remind you that one of the witnesses from whom we heard last time said that aboriginals would hesitate to become firearms officers because they might die in a hunting accident. I will also remind you that a witness opposed to the bill, when asked why it was that in his particular region familial homicides committed with guns were 17 times more numerous than in other parts of the country, replied, "That is because we have many more guns. If we did not have guns, we would kill them with knives."
Senator Pearson: When do you think you will have the decision from the Alberta reference before the Supreme Court?
Mr. Bartlett: We originally hoped to have a decision by December, but a Supreme Court of Canada decision which was rendered after the hearing in the Alberta Court of Appeal was very relevant to the issues so supplementary submissions were made by all parties, and that may well delay the decision. It is probably more likely now that it will be handed down early next year.
Senator Pearson: We will be very interested to learn the outcome.
Mr. Bartlett: As will we.
The Chairman: Thank you very much for appearing before us this morning.
How does the committee wish to proceed with the firearms regulations? I see three choices. We can hear more witnesses, we can report that we have heard the department officials today, or we can do nothing at all. We are not forced to report on this.
If we do decide to hear more witnesses, we only have two weeks in which to do so. Four groups have requested to appear before us, but all four have had the opportunity to appear before the House of Commons committee in its review of the regulations.
Senator Gigantès: In view of the calendar and our work load, I do not think members of the committee will have time to read all this literature. Perhaps we could ask someone unbiased on the subject to read it and then inform us.
The Chairman: I would prefer that we report simply that we have heard the department officials. Any other witnesses who would appear before us have had the opportunity to appear before the committee in the other place. The last time around, the committee in the House of Commons made many more recommendations than did this committee. They went into it in great depth. I am sure they are doing so again.
Senator Losier-Cool: I would be satisfied with that approach.
Senator Gigantès: Will you also report that one member of the committee had doubts about the efficacy of the sticker that was shown to us?
The Chairman: I will note that observation.
With regard to the report on Bill S-5, I have the following wording: "Concerns were raised by some members of the committee regarding the language used in reference to the proposed Canadian Human Rights Tribunal. For example, the English version of subsection 50(1) refers to the members or panel conducting the inquiry, while the French version refers to the "membre instructeur". Despite assurances by departmental officials, the committee urges the Minister of Justice to review the language used in Bill S-5 to ensure concurrence between the English and French versions."
The committee adjourned.