JURI Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON JUSTICE AND HUMAN RIGHTS

COMITÉ PERMANENT DE LA JUSTICE ET DES DROITS DE LA PERSONNE

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Thursday, November 27, 1997

• 1532

[English]

The Chair (Ms. Shaughnessy Cohen (Windsor—St. Clair, Lib.)): Order.

This is, I'm distressed to say, our last bit of evidence on the gun regulations. We have Richard Mosley, William Bartlett, and Carolyn Saint-Denis from the Department of Justice and the Canadian Firearms Centre.

Mr. Mosley, do you have something specific that you want to present, or do you just want to answer questions?

Mr. Richard G. Mosley (Assistant Deputy Minister, Criminal Law Policy and Community Justice Branch, Department of Justice): I do, but we will of course respond to questions as well.

The Chair: Go ahead.

Mr. Richard Mosley: Madam Chair and members of the committee, we appreciate the opportunity to appear before you again to address these regulations and to respond to the questions you may have that have arisen during the course of your hearings.

[Translation]

We have followed your proceedings and we appreciate all the work the committee has done. We are here today to answer your questions, so I will keep my presentation fairly short.

We have not been able to keep up with your committee's fast pace and that explains why we didn't have time to prepare a full version of my presentation in both languages.

It is for that reason also that I will not be handing out copies of my presentation. I will be addressing only a few issues and I think we will be of more assistance to you if we simply answer your questions.

[English]

I want to give particular note at this point to the contribution made by the User Group on Firearms to the development of these regulations. I understand that the user group appeared as a witness before you this morning.

[Translation]

Many concerns expressed by people appearing before you have to do with the legislation or with policy matters. I will not try to respond to these. However, a number of the issues raised do relate to the proposed Regulations.

• 1535

[English]

A number of witnesses have raised significant concerns in regard to the verification of registration information. Although support has been expressed for the proposed process of gradual verification on transfer, concerns have been raised that verification of restricted and prohibited firearms should be addressed earlier and more clearly.

It has, in particular, been proposed to you that verification on transfer of restricted and prohibited firearms should begin immediately on implementation rather than waiting until the end of the registration phase-in period on January 1, 2003. It has also been proposed that business inventories, acquisitions and imports, and new imports by individuals should be verified at the point of registration.

Proposals have been made to amend the proposed regulations to provide for additional verification requirements to address these issues, and we look forward to your recommendations in that regard.

[Translation]

A number of other concerns deal with regulatory provisions as such and I will be responding only to some of these. We will be pleased to listen to the members' comments when we answer their questions.

[English]

Dealing with the registration certificates regulations, several witnesses have questioned the requirement that the registrar be notified of any modification to the action, calibre or barrel length of a firearm registered as a frame or receiver. The purpose of this requirement is to address the situation in which the future status of this core element of firearm is unclear, because it is only in the form of a frame or a receiver when registered.

This should not be a common occurrence, although there have been suggestions by some opponents of the legislation that the registration system could be intentionally frustrated by doing this unnecessarily. Once the frame or receiver is turned into a complete firearm, only modifications that could change the class of a firearm need be reported.

Secondly, with respect to the import-export regulations for individuals, concerns have been expressed that there will be no border controls in effect after October 1, 1998, when the Firearms Act is implemented, and before January 1, 2001, when these regulations will come into effect.

I want to assure you that modified provisions in the customs tariff act will continue to apply controls that will be essentially the same as those that apply under the current law during this interim period. These will apply until the new processes, which are part of the Firearms Act, are put in place in 2001.

The proposed requirements for verification on registration of firearms imported by businesses and individuals will help ensure that the newly imported firearms are properly registered after they are brought into Canada.

Third, respecting shooting clubs and ranges, shooting groups have questioned the manner in which the liability insurance provision is framed. A particular concern has been raised about the need for errors and omissions insurance. In order to ensure that this requirement is appropriate to the purpose and available to the clubs and ranges who will need the insurance, we undertake to consult further with the insurance industry to see if a change should be made to the description of the appropriate liability insurance required.

[Translation]

Fourth, about gun shows. If some valid issues have been raised on specific requirements in the regulations, we will be pleased to review those requirements. There is, for example, the proposed section providing that the sponsor ensures the security of the whole building in which the gun show is being held. The intent of this provision might be better served if it applied only to that part of the building where the show is held.

Fifth, concerning public agents. Many witnesses have made comments about the Special Authority to Possess Regulations. I will skip to the public agents regulations, but before, I simply want to reiterate our commitments to the police forces, commitments that were questioned before the committee.

• 1540

[English]

This morning you heard from representatives of the Canadian Police Association. I understand that some concerns they had with commitments made by Minister Rock concerning the capacity of the registration system and ensuring that the implementation of the new program does not take police officers off the street or add to police budgets have now been answered by Minister McLellan's reaffirmation of those commitments.

Indeed, the registration system will have the address search capability required by police officers, and the implementation of the new program will not divert police officers from their primary duties. Rather, the new centralized automated processes and the new service delivery structures will remove from police officers the paperwork burden they now face, so that they can devote themselves to the investigative work, which is their primary responsibility.

Concerning the public agents regulations, the Canadian Police Association raised some concerns as to whether they might add to the cost incurred by police departments. I want to assure you that we have consulted on these regulations with representatives of both the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police and the CPA, and that all of those consulted felt that the provisions of the regulations were reasonable and would not put any burden on police operations. We will no doubt be consulting further with both the CACP and the CPA concerning these regulations and their implementation, and we'd be pleased to address any questions you may have regarding them.

Seventh, on reproductions used by historical re-enactors, representatives of historical re-enactors have questioned why we are not proposing to deem reproductions of certain percussion cap antique rifles to be themselves antiques. Although the issue of prescribed antiques is not part of the regulations before you, it was raised before the committee when the first package was being reviewed and was addressed in the committee's report.

We would be pleased to deal with the legal and policy aspects of the issue, but the technical expertise of Mr. Murray Smith, the chief scientist for firearms at the RCMP Central Forensic Laboratory, is likely to be of more assistance to you on the technical aspects, and I believe Mr. Smith is here to deal with any questions you may have concerning that matter.

[Translation]

We will be pleased now to answer all the questions the members will put to us.

[English]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

The Chair: Thanks, Mr. Mosley.

All right, 10 minutes, Jack.

Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.): You're giving me 10 minutes?

The Chair: I am, but I might take them away. That's ten regular minutes, not ten Ramsay minutes.

Mr. Jack Ramsay: I'd like to thank our witnesses for returning into what might be to some of them the lion's den. Thank you for coming, and thank you for clarifying some of the concerns that you have noticed have been presented to our committee.

With regard to the cost and the concerns raised by the Canadian Police Association, which were addressed by the letter today from the justice minister, there are two areas of responsibility. We're going to see the requirement to register, so there will be costs expended to register; then, of course, there's going to be the cost for someone to enforce the provisions that have been provided for not only in the Criminal Code but in the Firearms Act. Has all of that been taken into consideration in terms of evaluating whether or not it's going to place a demand upon existing police budgets?

Mr. Richard Mosley: With regard to straight enforcement, I think the position taken from the outset has always been that with any other criminal matter, the investigation of a crime is a matter for the police of local jurisdiction, who then bring the matter to the crown attorney, who has carriage of the proceedings in the court. Of course, the proceedings of the court take place before a court appointed, in most cases, by the provincial government.

We've had some discussions with the heads of prosecution for the provinces with respect to the manner of enforcement of those offences, in particular the offence under the Firearms Act in relation to possession of an unregistered firearm. Certain attorneys general—notably the Attorney General of Manitoba, and I think the same position is likely to be taken by the attorneys general of the other prairie provinces—have indicated that they will not be responsible for the enforcement of those provisions. Be careful to distinguish between the offences in the Criminal Code, which they will continue to enforce, and the particular provisions under the Firearms Act that they've indicated they will not enforce.

• 1545

In those circumstances we would expect that should the local police decide to charge, they would then bring that matter to a federal crown or a federal agent. As you know, Mr. Ramsay, we have regional offices across the country—in the west in particular, and the north—and we have local agents in each of the larger communities where the courts meet.

We distinguish between administration of the statute, all of the tasks and functions that are required in order to carry through licensing and registration, and the enforcement side of it. Insofar as the enforcement side goes, there will be that distinction between those jurisdictions in which prosecutions may be carried on by the attorney general of the province and those where they will be carried on on behalf of the Attorney General of Canada.

Mr. Jack Ramsay: What about the additional cost for the verifiers? How many will we have? Is there a program now for the training of the verifiers? Is there a budget estimate in that area?

Mr. Richard Mosley: We have not identified a separate cost item for verifiers. Our preference would be that this is done without charge to the individual and is done on a voluntary basis by local people who are very knowledgeable about firearms, such as members of the users committee whom you met this morning, or gun club members or gun shop owners, who would do it as a service to the firearms community within their neighbourhood. And they would not charge a fee for the service.

Mr. Jack Ramsay: Is the program going to be sufficiently well in place by October 1, 1998, to allow people who want to register their long guns to bring them in and have them verified so that verification takes place in the first instance?

Mr. Richard Mosley: That is our expectation, yes—on a voluntary basis, of course, because they won't be required to do that. But we would hope to have a network of persons who would be designated as verifiers in place by that date.

Mr. Jack Ramsay: When the User Group on Firearms was before us this morning, I raised my concern over the lack of verification and the fact that certificates would be going out based on unverified information, and Sergeant Pyke of that group pointed out the value of the system regardless of this, in that it would still be able to identify a residence where firearms have been registered in case of a call to that residence.

However, although we had focused on the question of the serial number of the firearm, because there is a lot more data in the name and address of the individual, the likelihood of a mistake being made and entered into the system that would foil and frustrate the police in that particular area and frustrate their condition, which was addressed by the justice minister in her letter to them, that that service would be provided—is there a concern there if you do not have verifiers in place?

I'm trying to look at the positive end of what we're doing, yet I struggle with it, because if verification is not available except on a voluntary basis by perhaps taking the long gun into the local police, as they do the handguns now, then we may frustrate the one service that the sergeant indicated would be there in spite of a lack of verification.

• 1550

I look at this form. Mistakes can be made by the individual who fills out the form, but even though the form is presented accurately, mistakes can also be made by whoever is transferring the information from this form into the system.

So there is a significant likelihood that any error in the registration of a firearm could include the address of the individual, which would of course frustrate the benefit that Sergeant Pyke suggested would be there in spite of this lack of verification.

Mr. Richard Mosley: It remains possible, of course, that an error can be made with regard to the address. It's much less likely that the error would be made by the person who is filling out a form and is putting their own address on the form.

I'm not sure that our experience thus far with applications under the existing system demonstrates that there has been a significant problem with addresses. I stand to be corrected on this, but my understanding is that the error rate has been more with the information in relation to the firearm, which we spoke of on the last occasion on which we were here.

I thought Sergeant Pyke's point was that having been aware that a firearm is in that address is of great value to the police, whether or not there's an error on the serial number, for example.

We believe that this information in respect of the address will be very, very accurate. Perhaps my colleague might comment on how we hope to achieve that.

Ms. Carolyn Saint-Denis (Senior Policy Analyst, Policy and Programs, Canadian Firearms Centre, Department of Justice): It's mainly to be accomplished by the process by which data on the form is being input into the computer system. There will be at least two checks on the recording of information as it goes in. There will be two separate checks by different people in the processing site to ensure that the information is transcribed correctly.

The Chair: Go ahead, take a couple of minutes.

Mr. Jack Ramsay: I'm sorry, madam. Are you finished?

Ms. Carolyn Saint-Denis: I'm finished. Thank you.

Mr. Jack Ramsay: If we look at the examination the Department of Justice did of the existing handgun registration system, we found that 30% of the information was not valid. Given the fact that about 25% of the people move each year in the country, how would that be enforced? We submit the form, we get our certificate back, but we move. The individual forgets to notify the registrar and Sergeant Pyke is attending that home and there's no indication that there are firearms in it.

Is it going to be cross-referenced to name and address or just to address?

Ms. Carolyn Saint-Denis: It will be cross-referenced to name and to certain other numbers as well, such as the FIN on firearms and the registration certificate number. There are going to be many opportunities in the life cycle of the firearms program for people to put in changes of address: when they are renewing their licences, when they are getting transfers, applying for any kinds of authorizations to transport and what not. Whether it's done over the phone or on a piece of paper, the question will always be asked, are you at the same address as you were when we last dealt with you?

There are legal requirements as well, of course, to report changes of address and name and what not, as there are now in the current law, but people have not done so. That's why the database did fall into some error. It's lack of currency of the information.

Mr. Jack Ramsay: How is that overcome and how do we maintain the integrity of the system when we haven't been able to do that with the handgun registration that has been around for 60 years?

This will be my final question on this round, Madam Chair. Thank you for the extra time.

• 1555

Ms. Carolyn Saint-Denis: I think it's going to be accomplished by the fact that the system is an ongoing, live system. Every five years, people have to apply for a licence or renew their licence, and if we are sending out notices that come back marked that the person is not there any more, the local firearms officer will be informed and will be going to check to see if something has in fact happened. We have all the other transactions that can occur between the licensing cycle as well, such as authorizations to transport or purchases and so forth.

The idea is that in using the gentle method, people really will be asked each time if they are at the same address they were at the last time we talked to them and, if not, to please let us know so that we can update the records accordingly.

The Chair: That's fine.

Mr. Bellehumeur? No question? Mr. Maloney.

Mr. John Maloney (Erie—Lincoln, Lib.): We've heard quite a number of comments about the registration certificate, the little stickers being placed on the receiver or the frame. There have been concerns that perhaps they could be placed not necessarily visible to the naked eye, but beside the stock or somewhere interior. Some arms already have that. Would that be a tremendous problem?

Mr. William C. Bartlett (Legal Counsel, Canadian Firearms Centre, Department of Justice): The regulations do provide that in cases where the manufacturer now puts a serial number on them and puts them in a hidden place—for instance, under the butt stock—the FIN, whether it's a sticker or an engraved FIN, could go in the same place. When they find that make and model of firearm, officers in the field will then know where to find either the serial number, or a FIN if it's an earlier model that didn't have a serial number at the time. There are two other exemptions that are somewhat more specialized, but in general, the intent of the regulations is that officers in the field will know where to find the serial number.

There have been concerns expressed by the people we've consulted that they don't want firearms officers or enforcement officers, for example, taking their firearms apart to find numbers. The need to be able to verify it quickly, and to do it without violating the concerns of the owners about their firearms, has led to a balanced set of requirements.

Mr. John Maloney: On the issue of re-enactors, we heard Mr. Feltoe's testimony on the difficulties with reproductions or the originals of these weapons that have the percussion caps, which are apparently designed in such a way that they're different from one of these guns that is in fact used for hunting. Is it possible that we could work out a compromise there that would take those outside the legislation?

Mr. William Bartlett: Perhaps we can ask Mr. Smith to come up to address the issue of percussion caps in general, and the two particular models that the re-enactors have.

Mr. John Maloney: The Enfield and the Springfield.

Mr. William Bartlett: The Enfield and the Springfield.

The Chair: I think that's a good idea. It's hard not to be sympathetic to their request, because I think their activities are so harmless and so enlightening for the community as well, and they seem so earnest about what they do.

Mr. Murray Smith (Chief Scientist, Firearms Centre Forensic Laboratory, Royal Canadian Mounted Police): The two firearms in question were the 1863 Springfield and the 1853 Enfield, I believe. Both are .58-calibre, and they are in a class of firearms referred to as percussion guns. That means they're the most modern of the muzzle-loading firearms, are the most convenient to reload, and have the highest rate of fire. Such firearms also—not necessarily those two models, but firearms of their type or very similar to their type—are widely used in Canada for hunting during the primitive weapons seasons that many provinces offer to their hunters. It's a sport that is gaining in popularity every year.

I think the difficulty would be to sort out where to draw the line in terms of which firearms should or should not be exempted, also bearing in mind that the percussion guns are the most modern of the antique firearms.

Mr. John Maloney: I believe the way in which the percussion cap came out, it wasn't with the Enfield and the Springfield. It wasn't necessarily the problem that those weapons would otherwise.... Would those weapons be used for hunting as well as the re-enactments? Is it possible that they can be?

Mr. Murray Smith: Yes, they would be. They're not exclusive at all. In fact, I can show you a page from the loading manual for the Enfield rifle. It mentions hunting loads, for example. It's clear that the firearms are used for both purposes.

• 1600

The Chair: Is there some way to frame the regulation so you define by use and by type? Does that make it more difficult to enforce or harm the clarity of it?

Mr. William Bartlett: Our power is simply to prescribe a particular firearm to be an antique or not.

The Chair: Is that because of the way we framed it in the statute?

Mr. William Bartlett: We can define the kind of firearm, but we can't tie it to who happens to be using it. Either it's an antique or it's not. Once it's deemed to be an antique, it doesn't cease to be one because it's in the hands of a hunter rather than an historical re-enacter.

The Chair: Forgetting for the moment whether it's desirable to do this or not, if the Parliament of Canada wanted to allow those guns to be used, would it have to go back and redefine the enabling power in the statute?

Mr. William Bartlett: Certainly. Adjustments could be made to what the act provides for that would do that directly or give the power to do it.

I might also note that the enabling power we're using simply provides for prescribing certain firearms to be antiques. Reproductions are firearms that may have been produced 10 years ago or may be produced 10 years from now, and prescribing them to be antiques obviously raises some issues.

I got a legal opinion from the regulations section about whether or not we could do this. It was put to them that if we covered only the older technologies up to the flintlock era, where the capabilities are significantly different and the same dangers aren't presented, could we do this and the answer was yes. But, quite frankly, we are pushing the edge of the envelope a bit by using the power in that way. If we push it into a more modern era of percussion cap, the legitimacy of using the power to deal with these reproductions could be put at some risk. That certainly isn't going to help the historical re-enacters.

The Chair: No.

Mr. John Maloney:

[Editor's Note: Inaudible]...the magic years pre-1895 are antique?

Mr. William Bartlett: The cut-off date is 1898.

Mr. John Maloney: So an original antique musket with a percussion cap is taken outside the act, but the exact replica of that gun made yesterday is not.

Mr. Murray Smith: Yes, that's the case.

Mr. William Bartlett: That's the case, but let's recognize that in drawing a line and saying the firearms produced before this date are antiques and lie outside licensing and registration, Parliament has made a decision about where to draw the line in terms of balancing the public safety concerns. Now we're using a regulatory power to extend that somewhat.

Mr. Murray Smith: Something else to consider is that the original percussion muzzle-loading firearms are of limited supply. There were only so many made and there are no more of the ones made before 1898. Secondly, the firearms are old and valuable and individuals are loath to shoot them. The replica firearms of modern manufacture are generally used for that purpose.

One of the factors you should bear in mind is that there is no limit on the number that can be made. Secondly, those particular firearms are generally made to more exacting manufacturing tolerances than would have been the case in the original firearm. Even though they're replicas they're somewhat more capable, because metallurgy has improved over the years, as have safety issues that manufacturers will take into account when they build such firearms.

• 1605

Mr. John Maloney: We had some discussion about transfer fees and whether there could be a block fee for an estate with a large number of weapons. Are we going to address that, or can we address that? Has there been some discussion on that point?

Mr. Richard Mosley: That's something, if the committee so recommended, we could certainly give some further thought to. At this point I don't think we're in a position to give you a considered view, inasmuch as we haven't looked at what the impact might be on the cost and revenue projections.

Mr. John Maloney: Another area with gun shows was that an individual who was operating a gun show had to make sure the whole building was secure, as opposed to perhaps the rooms within the building where the show was being held. Is there room for movement there to make that more reasonable or practical?

Ms. Carolyn Saint-Denis: Very much so. It's a matter we intended to look at as well...and possibly look at the other storage requirements. The rules for individual safe storage may be the rules that will apply for all gun shows, as opposed to business rules, because of the requirement for electronic burglar alarm systems and what not. We'll be looking at that over the course of the next couple of weeks.

Mr. John Maloney: I will ask my last question on shooting ranges and the reference to environmental protection. What do we mean by “environmental protection”? How far do we go on that?

Ms. Carolyn Saint-Denis: Ranges obviously will have to operate within the rules that would be applicable in any municipality or that would be issued by a provincial or federal government in the area where they are located. They may relate to noise or lead pollution, containment areas, and so forth.

One of the means we have offered to help out shooting clubs is that we will have our lawyers prepare information on what the applicable federal legislation might be which applies to environmental issues, and some of the provincial ones, the statutes that may come into play. We'll make that available to shooting clubs across the country. When it comes down to the level of municipal rules, they will obviously have to check with each municipal government, as they would ordinarily for a business licence or something like that.

Mr. William Bartlett: This requirement doesn't add anything to what a shooting range would otherwise have to comply with. It's simply a question of providing evidence at the point at which they are seeking an approval that they do meet applicable federal, provincial, and municipal law, to which they would be subject in any case. That's something they are going to have to deal with in the course of establishing or operating a shooting range.

We will certainly provide whatever assistance we can in helping them identify what it is they have to deal with, but for local legislation they will probably have to make inquiries. On a practical level, in most cases it would be a matter of checking with officials on the provincial and municipal levels to find out what it is they have to comply with and ensuring they have done so, then simply providing the evidence to the provincial minister, who will then be asked to approve them as a shooting range.

Mr. John Maloney: Also on the shooting clubs and shooting range regulations, one witness commented that they had to report injuries caused by the discharge of a firearm and had suggested the word “projectile” instead of “discharge”. Is that too...?

Ms. Carolyn Saint-Denis: We can take that one under advisement. We thought the words “discharge of a firearm” conveyed the idea we're talking about when the projectile comes out too, so they don't have to report some of the kinds of incidents they talked about here. But if you split the hair so finely that you have to wait till the bullet gets out of the gun it becomes more confusing.

We can look at it to see if there's anything we can play with.

Mr. John Maloney: It's not a big point.

Ms. Carolyn Saint-Denis: No.

The Chair: Mr. Forseth.

Mr. Paul Forseth (New Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby, Ref.): Thank you.

I'm sure since first coming to the committee and laying out the regulations you've followed the testimony of the committee and looked over the transcripts of the various presenters and the questions posed. In view of all this, do you see any need to make some technical adjustments to the regulations because of the testimony? If you do, I would like to hear about them. Can you list them at this time, or are you going to respond by document, or shall we just wait for the actual amendments?

• 1610

Mr. Richard Mosley: Generally I think yes, we have heard some suggestions that indicate there is a need for changes to the draft regulations. Might I offer the assistance of our services to work with staff of the committee to perhaps propose some ideas of what those changes might be, based on the testimony you have heard? I think we can give a few examples.

Perhaps I'll turn to Ms. Saint-Denis.

Ms. Carolyn Saint-Denis: The gun show regulations I know need to be fixed up a little bit in order to take away the distinction between a sales gun show and a display gun show, in that there's no licensing requirement for exhibitors. We can simplify the regulations somewhat by collapsing the show types together and clarifying more the duties of the sponsors and what not.

We have already indicated we're going to look at the safe storage requirements and probably drop them down to the level of what individuals would have to do, because they do provide a little more flexibility for exhibitors.

That kind of technical amendment we may have one or two of in the registration certificates that deal with certain specific classes of firearms—what in fact is deemed to be a receiver?—so that it's clearer to individuals where they would put their serial number or sticker if they had to put one on.

Those kinds of clarifications I think we can make. Plain language is needed in some of the sections, in light of some of the testimony we heard on fee tables and what not that are confusing to people. For example, the movie industry witnesses this morning weren't able to read where they fit in the various fee categories. I think we can do things like that.

Mr. Paul Forseth: Mr. Bartlett, do you have any further comment?

Mr. William Bartlett: Rather than deal with any more detailed issues, we are reviewing all of the briefs and all of the testimony, and will be putting together a list of suggestions that we see in there that appear to be reasonable and doable, and we would be happy to make those available.

Mr. Paul Forseth: Okay. Thank you.

The Chair: I'll just maybe piggyback on that one, too. Mr. Lee, who had to leave, left me with a couple of notes. One is on page 26 of the firearms regulations. Paragraph 7(2)(b) refers the reader to paragraph 10(b), but I think that's an error and it should refer to section 9.

Mr. William Bartlett: There are three typographical errors.

The Chair: Are there? Okay. So we have three typos that will be included in your list. I'm sure Mr. Lee will pick up on all of them, and two or three more. That's great. It's always good if there is more than one person working on that kind of thing.

Mr. Ramsay.

Mr. Jack Ramsay: First, I'd like to know if there is anyone here from the department who can address the cost more specifically than we were able to do when you first appeared.

Mr. Richard Mosley: I think that falls within my area of responsibility, but I think my answer would be similar to the one I gave you on the first occasion with regard to the costs.

We are continuing to work with the provinces and territories on the projections for the models for delivery of the services in those jurisdictions, and working with them on the estimates of how much it will cost to deliver the services.

We are continuing to work with the Department of Human Resources Development on the construction and operation of the central processing site in New Brunswick. We are continuing to work with the RCMP on their role as an alternative service delivery provider in the opted-out provinces. We're still engaged in negotiations with the private sector companies that will build portions of the system. So at this point in time, Mr. Ramsay, I'm really not in a position to give you precise numbers.

I should say, though, that all of this will be laid out to Parliament at the point in time at which estimates are presented and considered by Parliament, and thereafter. The full cost figures will emerge as time proceeds and as the stages we are currently still engaged in are completed.

• 1615

Mr. Jack Ramsay: Do you have the design of the computer program? Is it established? How far are you along the lines of the computer program that will be used?

Mr. Richard Mosley: It's not a program per se, a single program. It is a computer system with a number of different elements to it.

Yes, I think we are very much along in terms of the shape of that. I should say we've spent a great deal of time and effort on that system. As much as 25,000 hours went into working out each element of the system. Those elements have been refined to the point where we have a very good idea as to each step or stage of the proceedings, but we're still negotiating with contractors, to the extent that we would not want to disclose information that might assist any one or more of the companies that will bid on this work.

I should say also that it's really important in this process to complete these proceedings, because until we know the final regulations required for implementation we can't close down that developmental work and say, okay, that's it, we know exactly what we're building and delivering and we go on from here.

As soon as this is finished, I think in January when we have received your report and the government has decided which recommendations—I'm assuming of course there will be recommendations from the committee—it is accepting, at that point in time we will know precisely what we have to deliver.

Mr. Jack Ramsay: Can you tell the committee whether the system will be able to scan the information off this form I'll be filling out or whether or not it will have to be transferred into the system item by item? Do we know that yet?

Ms. Carolyn Saint-Denis: Yes, we do. It will be transferred into the system item by item and the form itself will be microfilmed, as I indicated last week, for storage purposes.

Mr. Jack Ramsay: Approximately how long will it take to transfer one of these sheets into the system?

The Chair: A week.

Ms. Carolyn Saint-Denis: Approximately.... I don't know how many keystrokes that is. I'm assuming a few minutes.

Mr. Richard Mosley: Perhaps I may invite Paul Trottier to come to the table and speak to that.

The Chair: Okay.

Mr. Paul Trottier (Director, Canadian Firearms Registration System, Canadian Firearms Centre, Department of Justice): Thank you, Madam Chair.

We haven't done timing to see exactly how much time it's going to take to capture all of the information that's on these things. We haven't done keystroke timing yet, because the systems have not been finalized, nor have the forms been finalized.

The current process to capture the information off the FAC is really quite close to this insofar as the tombstone data related to the applicant is concerned. The scanning of the photo, etc., takes less than seven minutes end to end to complete the transaction by one individual. That's capturing all of the information off the FAC form.

Mr. Jack Ramsay: Item by item.

Mr. Paul Trottier: Item by item.

Mr. Jack Ramsay: Do you anticipate that the final version will be shorter or longer than that?

Mr. Paul Trottier: The application as it is now is four pages for the FAC. Although not all of that information is captured, all of the information is scrutinized. In our view this should not take any longer than that.

Mr. Jack Ramsay: I imagine there will be a training program for the verifiers. Who will do that? Will that be done by the RCMP or will it be done by the chief firearms officers? Who will be doing the training for the verifiers?

Mr. Richard Mosley: To a certain extent I think we will rely on the knowledge that verifiers already have about firearms. But to the extent that training would be required, I think we would contract that out.

• 1620

Ms. Carolyn Saint-Denis: It may be contracted out under the authority of the RCMP. There will be a training program for people. It won't be of long duration in terms of the number of days, but there will be written materials prepared and information on CD-ROM will be provided to all of the people who become verifiers. I think they envisage two or three days of training at this point in the planning cycle.

Mr. Jack Ramsay: You'll be training them as firearm identification experts.

Ms. Carolyn Saint-Denis: Experts—I don't think so. I think we'll be training them in what it is they have to do to verify the description of a firearm and to check that the information is correctly recorded on a registration certificate.

Mr. Jack Ramsay: What do they do when they're presented with a firearm they can't identify?

Ms. Carolyn Saint-Denis: Then they will call for help from the experts in the forensic lab attached to the RCMP.

Mr. Jack Ramsay: Will the firearm then be sent forward if necessary?

Ms. Carolyn Saint-Denis: In extreme and rare cases I understand that some firearms may have to be forwarded to the RCMP labs, perhaps regionally, wherever they are.

Mr. Jack Ramsay: Forensic scientists are receiving these now where no one can identify them, so there is a certain percentage of these very rare firearms, or whatever you want to term them, but there are those firearms that are now coming in the labs.

Perhaps Mr. Smith can help us there.

Mr. Murray Smith: I've engaged a number of new staff members at the laboratory whose purpose will be to assist the registrar's office in identifying firearms that cannot be readily identified in the field.

The original vision called for shipping firearms into the Ottawa lab for analysis and identification if necessary, but upon reflection I think probably what we'll do at the time is look at where firearms are being pooled, where they're gathering together naturally, and if it's more cost-effective to send someone out to where the firearms are then we'll do that as well.

Mr. Jack Ramsay: This form I imagine will be in duplicate so that I will be able to keep a copy of it. If the commencement date when I have to have my firearm registered comes and goes and I still have not got it back, then will my copy be suitable? In other words, will it be an interim registration certificate until I get my certificate back from the registrar?

Mr. Richard Mosley: I think we should clarify that. I don't believe the form will be in duplicate. Unless you want to make a copy of it yourself, having completed the form you will not have a copy.

With regard to the question about commencement date—I'm sorry—

Mr. Jack Ramsay: It's all right. For the record—

Mr. Richard Mosley: The final date.

Mr. Jack Ramsay: Yes, when do I have to have my firearm registered to comply with the statute?

Mr. Richard Mosley: January 1, 2003.

Mr. Jack Ramsay: So in October or November of 2002 I fill out my form and send it in. Before I get it back, the time period comes and goes and I'm sitting there with an unregistered firearm, or at least there is no evidence that it is registered that it's in my possession. What happens there?

Mr. Richard Mosley: I think it is probably primarily a matter of police discretion at that point in time.

The scenario I think you're suggesting is somebody who has sent in their application, say in December 2002, and as of January 1, 2003, does not yet have the certificate.

Bill Bartlett is suggesting that an amnesty order will cover that period in time. Do you want to explain?

Mr. William Bartlett: Yes. There will be amnesty orders that will deal with a variety of situations, particularly at various points when certain requirements have come due. One of the aspects that will be dealt with is ensuring that people who have submitted their forms but not yet gotten their certificate or their licence back won't be subject to any liability simply while they're waiting.

• 1625

Mr. Jack Ramsay: Of course, I'm thinking about mail strikes and such things.

I liked your answer, Mr. Bartlett, so I'll ask you my last question. What constitutes the registration of a firearm under Bill C-68 and the regulations?

Mr. William Bartlett: The offence provisions of the Criminal Code require that you be the holder of a registration certificate, and you are the holder of a registration certificate if one has been issued to you for that firearm. If there's intentional fraud whereby someone applies for a certificate for one kind of firearm and is in possession of another entirely, clearly that won't cover that firearm. But a simple error in some of the information does not mean that the certificate is not valid or that the person is subject to prosecution for being in possession of the firearm without being the holder of a registration certificate.

If they apply for a certificate in good faith and receive one, they are the holder of a certificate, and small errors will not change that. In order for a certificate to be issued for that firearm, the law never requires the degree of perfection you're talking about.

Mr. Jack Ramsay: I just asked you a question. I asked you what constitutes the registration of a firearm to comply with Bill C-68 and its regulations. That was my question to you.

Now, in my mind I have little flags flying all over, but I don't want to get on that circle again. We'll leave it at that. I'll accept your answer. It's on the record.

Mr. William Bartlett: Perhaps I can simply add that the process is a matter of making application, according to the act and the regulations, for your firearm, and having a registration certificate issued.

Mr. Jack Ramsay: But I wasn't asking about the process. We understand fairly well the process. What I'm interested in is what constitutes the registration of a firearm under this legislation. You've answered, and I won't belabour the issue.

Thank you.

The Chair: Mr. MacKay, I think we can spare you a couple of minutes.

Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC): Thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate your indulgence. I apologize for arriving late.

My first question is rather broad, but it applies in specific reference to the modification sections in the registration certificate regulations.

Specifically, on page 2, it states, under “Conditions”, that:

3.(a) any modification to the firearm that could result in a change of class of the firearm;

I'm wondering how this is going to jive with the various witnesses who've appeared before this committee to suggest that either in the manufacturing of firearms or in the importation or exportation—competitive shooting is another example that comes to mind—they may, even in the course of a day, assemble and disassemble and modify firearms. Are they going to be subject to this $12.50 fee? If so, how is that going to be enforced?

Ms. Carolyn Saint-Denis: The registration form as per the example you've given provides space for people to fill in, at a minimum, three calibres and three barrel lengths, and numbers of shots that go along with each, and different actions. Of course, people are free to supply additional information on their firearm if they wish. That constitutes the registration record on that firearm.

The person may then take it apart and put it together as many times as they like for travelling or of whatever other purposes they have in mind. That does not change the class of the firearm at all. They don't have to inform anybody about that.

• 1630

So that takes care of paragraph 3(a). In paragraph 3(a), we only want to know about a change that would take a firearm from a non-restricted class down to a restricted class by cutting it down or something, or possibly even down to a prohibited class, which of course would then get much more problematic.

Paragraph 3(b) is on modifications to frames or receivers that are registered. The provisions in fact provide for the registration of a frame or receiver as a convenience to firearms owners, if they wish to do so, but obviously it's just a small bit. If you're going to modify that by adding something on to it, then the regulation specifies at that point that you must notify the registrar.

Our information packages will define action, calibre, and barrel length. Some of the examples given by some of the witnesses are in fact not accurate descriptions of changes of action. I don't think there will be the same degree of confusion on their part when we start to get the instructional materials together that will go with the form and so forth.

Mr. Peter MacKay: I have just a couple of comments. The shortening of a barrel to anything less than 18.5 inches is going to put it into the category of a restricted or prohibited weapon anywhere, so that's already covered.

I gave you an example with respect to the presentation we had from Lavalin. Their private firearms experts indicated that they do any number of modifications. They receive weapons for testing. In the course of a day, I would suggest, based on the information we were provided, hundreds of changes would be covered and classified by definition under this legislation as modifications.

Ms. Carolyn Saint-Denis: I wasn't here for their presentation, and I will check into it. I visited the SNC site. I understand what they do produce. They do modify firearms for training purposes by altering the interior of the barrel so that it will take training ammunition and what not. In my understanding of what they do, their activities would not be affected by these sections.

Mr. Peter MacKay: They would be exempt.

Ms. Carolyn Saint-Denis: It's not that they're exempt, they're not affected. They're not changing the class of their firearms. They aren't working only with frames or receivers. What they're producing is a modified firearm of the same prohibited or restricted class, whatever it was in the first place, that can handle special ammunition for training purposes.

Obviously if they think otherwise, we'll have to work with them so they'll understand the effect of these regulations more clearly.

Mr. Peter MacKay: That leads me back to my original question: why does the wording say “any modification”? That's a fairly broad term.

Ms. Carolyn Saint-Denis: That could result in a change of class, so it's “any modification”. Are you asking whether we should name the modifications that could do it?

Mr. Peter MacKay: Perhaps the reverse scenario is to have exemptions if it's for the purposes of manufacturing.

The Chair: Excuse me, I don't know if I can help. I may be trying to make a point that I'm not getting either.

Read paragraph 3(a) on page 2. When you read the whole thing, you can't just say “any modification”. It's any modification that would lead to a change of class.

Mr. Peter MacKay: That “could” lead to a change of class.

The Chair: So unless that modification can change the class of the gun, the modification needn't be reported. Am I right?

Ms. Carolyn Saint-Denis: Yes, but I'd like to add a clarification.

The Chair: Yes.

Ms. Carolyn Saint-Denis: You're focusing on manufacturers. Manufacturers will report in—you're right—a firearm at the frame or receiver stage when it has a serial number on it. Then they will proceed, obviously, to add on barrels and what not, and they will update their registration certificates.

It's going to be an ongoing process for manufacturers in Canada. There are no fees for registrations for businesses at any rate, so they don't pay the $12.50 fee. Basically they will just directly inform us of what the frame or receiver has now become in its final stage.

Mr. Peter MacKay: So for any change in the barrel or modification of the class, they are required to report it for every weapon.

Ms. Carolyn Saint-Denis: That's for what they produce on the manufacturing line. They will register them at the point they produce a frame or receiver because that's when the serial number goes on. Later on, when they've finished the production of that firearm and it's in its final form, they'll supply the other characteristics, the complete description.

Mr. Peter MacKay: What about the example of when they brought a weapon in?

Mr. William Bartlett: Mr. MacKay, perhaps I can just add something.

I think that as with a number of the concerns that have been raised about these regulations, they have to be applied with a certain amount of simple common sense. If they are doing operations that result in a number of changes occurring in the course of a day, clearly we are not concerned about hearing about all those modifications. A modification of some permanence is what we have in mind.

• 1635

But I wouldn't even suggest that we add those words. The more words of that sort you add, the more problems you create. I would suggest that kind of situation is quite adequately dealt with by simply applying the regulations with a certain amount of simple common sense and a reasonable appreciation of what the obvious intent is.

Mr. Peter MacKay: Common sense on both sides—the side of both the person complying and those enforcing it.

About Lavalin as a specific example, as subcontractors of the government, are they expected to comply with the regulations in producing weapons for the Canadian Armed Forces? Are they going to be required to register those?

Ms. Carolyn Saint-Denis: When they are dealing directly with a contract for DND they are exempt from the provisions of the Firearms Act. But that particular company deals well beyond DND, so they are in fact currently now licensed as an industrial supplier, and will continue to be so.

Mr. Peter MacKay: I'm moving forward to page 4, on section 9, the revocation section. At least to me the wording appears to be somewhat stringent, akin to absolute liability: “The registrar shall revoke a registration certificate if....” To me that doesn't imply any flexibility or discretion.

Ms. Carolyn Saint-Denis: That is correct, because this is a revocation power supplemental to that which is contained in the act. All we are doing is setting out very particular circumstances in which the registrar shall revoke.

Mr. Peter MacKay: Okay. So if it falls under that section there is no discretion on the part of the registrar.

Ms. Carolyn Saint-Denis: That's correct.

Mr. William Bartlett: But that's if it actually changes the class of the firearm or is a modification of the action or calibre of a frame or receiver. But we are not talking about every firearm having a frame or receiver, therefore if you touch the action or calibre...simply those cases where what they register initially is the piece you handed around the other day. They register it simply as a frame or receiver. At that point we want to know about modifications, because we want to know what the thing becomes when it is fleshed out into a full firearm. Thereafter we are only concerned with modifications that change the class.

Mr. Peter MacKay: My point is this. If there is discretion to be exercised at the front end by the person who is inspecting or making the decision on whether to go ahead with a potential revocation, why is it that there is no discretion later on on the part of the registrar himself? It says he “shall revoke” on all occasions.

Ms. Carolyn Saint-Denis: The implication here isn't necessarily that there are going to be criminal consequences. It's just that the old certificate must now be done away with and a new one issued.

Mr. Peter MacKay: But this is automatically going to attract penalty sections under section 91.

Ms. Carolyn Saint-Denis: No, not unless penalty sections are created. The person is not going to be left in possession of an unregistered firearm. They will be issued a new one, if, of course, they are eligible to possess the new kind they have created and have the appropriate licence.

Mr. Peter MacKay: So in revoking the certificate the person is going to be subject to seizure of their weapons.

Ms. Carolyn Saint-Denis: No.

Mr. Peter MacKay: And what if they have other...? This is one certificate for one particular weapon, is that correct?

Ms. Carolyn Saint-Denis: Yes, it's one certificate per firearm.

Mr. William Bartlett: But it will be reissued. The intent here—and I think it is fairly clear—is that one will be revoked but a new one issued for the new class of firearm that results.

Mr. Peter MacKay: If it can be reclassified; if it doesn't attract other sections—

Ms. Carolyn Saint-Denis: Yes.

Mr. Peter MacKay: —for instance if they have altered the barrel to make it prohibited.

The period is something I wanted to question as well. Why the fifth working day? This is on page 5. Should it not read “excluding Saturdays and Sundays and holidays”?

• 1640

Mr. William Bartlett: Sunday is a holiday under the Interpretation Act, so the word “holiday” includes Sundays.

Mr. Peter MacKay: Okay. But why the period of five working days?

Mr. William Bartlett: That's a common standard for deemed delivery periods. Five working days is something you will find in a number of other places, in regulations in particular, and I've seen it in statutes as well.

Mr. Peter MacKay: This is going to be the new improved Canada Post, is it?

Mr. William Bartlett: Everybody knows the exceptions, but their general delivery record is certainly consistent with it.

Mr. Peter MacKay: On page 8, when we talk about disposal of detained firearms, there is no provision anywhere in the regulations that I've seen that would allow for resale. In fact, it's specifically stated that there would be no weapons ever resold after they were confiscated. That is consistent with the intention of the act, I guess, to lower the actual pool of weapons that exist in the country.

Mr. William Bartlett: It's also consistent, Mr. MacKay, with various international conventions presently being developed in terms of dealing with illicitly trafficked or smuggled firearms. Most of those conventions now require that those firearms are not simply returned to the market, but when they've been seized they should be either dealt with for very limited public purposes or destroyed.

Mr. Peter MacKay: It may be consistent with proposed international regulations, but I would suggest that it leaves no leeway for any cost recovery for the implementation of the entire regulations. None. We've heard examples of very valuable rifles being destroyed for no other purpose than that these regulations don't permit anything else.

Ms. Carolyn Saint-Denis: It's also consistent with current federal government policy on the disposal of firearms and reflects what the chief firearms officers of all provinces involved in the administration of this act wish to see done. There are provisions, obviously, for passing along unique firearms to forensic labs or to use them for training or scientific purposes, or for sale to another public agent—if it can be used by a police force, for example—but you're correct, not for sale back into the general public domain.

Mr. William Bartlett: I might also add, Mr. MacKay, that there have been occasions in the past where firearms handed in during amnesty were then sold and people who had turned them in found the firearms on sale to someone else, which was not their intent. This has led to changes in, for example, the Ontario Police Act requiring that this simply not occur. You might consider how some people may feel if they had their firearm seized and then discovered it on sale someplace, or found that somebody had been allowed to purchase it.

Mr. Peter MacKay: Not to put too fine a point on it, but if a person had it seized and they were assessed a fine and had it taken away from them, I don't see anything wrong, frankly, if they had complied with all other regulations, in purchasing it back.

The greatest penalty of all, I guess, is losing your possession and having the ability on the part of the government to have cost-recovery by selling seized items to persons who have complied in every other way, shape and form with these regulations. I don't see it as a necessary evil.

Mr. Richard Mosley: We would be pleased to consider any position the committee may wish to express on that point, but I don't think we can offer any more in response to that question.

Mr. Peter MacKay: That's fine.

The Chair: We'll take a little break, and I'll let Ms. Bakopanos ask a question, and Mr. Ramsay has a couple. I was only able to give you 16 minutes. Ms. Bakopanos.

Ms. Eleni Bakopanos (Ahuntsic, Lib.): Thank you, Madam Chair.

I have one short question. There was a testimony made by the Coalition for Gun Control asking that guests also register at shooting galleries. Do you have an opinion on that recommendation?

• 1645

Ms. Carolyn Saint-Denis: We would have to take that one under consideration for a while. We did discuss that during the process of development of the regulations, and certainly in terms of long gun ranges it's almost an unfeasible thing to do, since there's no one down there to witness it and you can't leave the books lying around and what not. It may be something we'll want to consider for restricted and prohibited clubs and how they might keep track of visitors. All visitors have to be sponsored in any event by a member of the club, so it shouldn't be too difficult for clubs to keep track of them in some way.

Ms. Eleni Bakopanos: Okay, because there was allusion made in terms of people not really actually having to register. There would be a report made by the club. And I think the coalition's position—if I understood them, and I could be wrong—was that they would like both the person who's a member and the guest who will accompany the member to register each time.

Is that effective, in your opinion?

Ms. Carolyn Saint-Denis: No, I don't know how practical it is always in terms of clubs, because they vary from very tiny organizations to quite large ones. It certainly bears looking into.

Ms. Eleni Bakopanos: There was a lot of discussion by a lot of our witnesses—who in my opinion were fundamentally opposed to this legislation—who said there would be a lot of financial fallout. A lot of shooting clubs would close. A lot of gun shows would close. In your consultations with these organizations, was there a discussion around this issue, and do we have any facts on other countries that have gone through this experience where there has been a financial fallout in terms of legislation that has been introduced?

I know it's quite a question to answer in two or three minutes, but take a stab at it.

Ms. Carolyn Saint-Denis: The issue certainly came up during the consultations, there's no doubt about that. We have tended to indicate that we in fact think the membership in gun clubs may increase because of the requirement to either be a collector or a target shooter if you have firearms. So presumably some greater number of people are going to choose the target shooting than currently go out.

The second thing we respond is that shooting is a sport like any others, and sporting activities cost money, and all sports cost more each year. So you have to look at it in that kind of a context. I understand shooting organizations, as with any sport, don't like to lose members, so they are concerned. They may be premature worries at this stage until we see what the technical specifications for ranges will look like and whether it really will have the effect of closing down places.

We're not in any position to judge that at this point, and we certainly indicated we're going to consult with them very broadly when we get our specifications.

Ms. Eleni Bakopanos: Thank you, Madam Chair.

The Chair: Mr. Ramsay.

Mr. Jack Ramsay: I'd like to ask Mr. Murray Smith something.

The Chair: Murray Smith, please.

Mr. Jack Ramsay: How are you today?

Mr. Murray Smith: Very good, and yourself, sir?

Mr. Jack Ramsay: What I wanted, of course, was a forensic scientist who appears in court on a regular basis on firearms cases. I understand that at one time you did appear in court on firearms cases. Is that true?

Mr. Murray Smith: Yes, I have appeared in court and have testified hundreds of times. In my position now as chief scientist, firearms for the RCMP laboratories, I am continually in contact with those firearms examiners across the country who do go to court on a regular basis. They often consult with me on those matters prior to court attendance.

Mr. Jack Ramsay: When was the last time you appeared in court?

Mr. Murray Smith: For me personally, it was several years ago that I made my last court appearance.

Mr. Jack Ramsay: And you're qualified as an expert?

Mr. Murray Smith: Yes.

Mr. Jack Ramsay: The reason I wanted to have someone here who is appearing on a regular basis is because I wanted to bounce some of my concerns about what we've heard so far. If I get to a point where you don't feel you can answer my questions, then by all means just let me know and I'll cease and desist.

Over the years, the forensic scientists I have talked to have had some technical concerns. I can give you an example, and then I'll come back to my concern about these regulations.

• 1650

If a forensic scientist is called as a witness in a case where a prohibited handgun by way of calibre, the .32, is found in the possession of an individual and that person is charged for having possession of a prohibited weapon—to wit, a .32 calibre—I am told that if that firearm is placed in the hands of the forensic scientist on the witness stand and the forensic scientist is asked to tell the court the calibre of that firearm, they determine the calibre by the size of the projectile fired and not what is on the side of the firearm. In other words, a .32 calibre that's called a .32 with that marking on the side apparently does not fire a .32 calibre projectile.

Is that true?

Mr. Murray Smith: That speaks to the historical meaning of the word “calibre”, going back to the days of muzzle-loading firearms, before firearms had rifling and when the interior of the barrel was smooth. Then the bore diameter was a very simple thing to identify. It was simply the diameter of the interior of the barrel. That was what was known as calibre in those days. With the coming of cartridge-based ammunition, starting in the mid-19th century, that muddied the water somewhat, because the calibre designation was broadened to include not only the approximate diameter of the bullet but also the cartridge design.

In today's parlance calibre ordinarily means the name of the cartridge that a firearm is designed to fire.

So in the case of a .32 there is a variety of .32 calibres: a .32 Smith & Wesson calibre, for instance, which is designed for certain revolvers; a .32 automatic calibre, which is designed for certain automatic pistols. The calibre name would be complete only if you specified the entire nomenclature of the cartridge. The bullet diameter is not as relevant as it once was, and in fact in many cases it's irrelevant because....

Let me give you an example, sir, the .32 ACP cartridge or .32 auto cartridge. That particular kind of ammunition is widely known as a .32. If you pick up a box of such ammunition in virtually any retail store or gunsmith shop, you'll find the word “.32” prominently figuring in the name of that cartridge. It is generally known to people in the firearms business as being a .32 calibre firearm, yet if you look at the technical aspects of that calibre name, .32 ACP, you will discover that the bullet diameter is not .32 inches. It's somewhere in the neighbourhood of .311. You will find that the ACP part, which stands originally for automatic Colt pistol, is not just for pistols any more, that some revolvers fire it, and that the Colt part doesn't apply simply to Colt-brand firearms. There are many other brands of firearms that also fire that calibre.

So in modern-day usage the calibre is really the name of the cartridge.

I believe that would have to be taken into account when the courts render their decision. Any competent firearms expert, whether he be a forensic firearms examiner or a gunsmith or whoever, would be able to adequately point that out to the court, that the name of the cartridge that particular firearm is designed to fire is, for example, .32 ACP.

Mr. Jack Ramsay: Would the size of the cartridge or the name of the cartridge, as you have stated, also be what is on the side of the firearm?

Mr. Murray Smith: In most cases, yes. There are some firearms that are not marked as to calibre, but in general the full cartridge name would be marked on the firearm, or in some cases just the numerical portion, the .32.

Mr. Jack Ramsay: Now, my question that's relevant to these regulations—and, again, if I'm not asking the right person, just let me know.

• 1655

You're on the witness stand, a long gun is placed in your hand, and you're asked to examine it. The corresponding registration certificate is placed in your hand as well, and you find that there's a difference in the serial number. What do you say to the court?

Mr. Murray Smith: If I were there, I would feel obliged to point out to the court exactly what markings were present on the firearm and discrepancies, if any, that relate to the registration certificate, providing that was in fact what the court had asked me to do at the time.

Mr. Jack Ramsay: It would be what I as the defence counsel would be asking you to do.

Mr. Murray Smith: Okay.

Mr. Jack Ramsay: I would be asking you, does this certificate match this firearm? What would you say?

Mr. Murray Smith: That's a different question. What you first asked me was whether we would report any discrepancies, and the fact is that yes, we would. The issue of whether a registration certificate pertains to a certain firearm—

Mr. Jack Ramsay: The question used the word “match”.

Mr. Murray Smith: —or matches a certain firearm...I guess a number of factors come into play. If that is the actual issue that the court itself is being asked to resolve, then it would be normal practice for the expert witness not to comment on that particular aspect without the leave of the court.

But assuming leave was granted, I would have to point out any discrepancies that existed, and overall I would give an opinion as to whether or not the description in the registration certificate was a generally good description of the firearm or not, bearing in mind the discrepancies, if any, and how well the other factors matched.

You have to remember that on a registration certificate of the kind used today, there are some eight characteristics that are used to describe a firearm. It's not likely that there's going to be a mistake in a large number of those characteristics. And with respect to two digits transposed in the serial number when all the other information—the make, the manufacturer, the calibre, the barrel length and all the other descriptors—matches, one could easily arrive at the conclusion that there's an error in the preparation of the certificate.

But in absolute terms, you wouldn't know. You couldn't guarantee that the firearm was the one mentioned in the certificate.

Mr. Jack Ramsay: The point I wish to make is that there's a challenge over the ownership of the firearm and the thing ends up in court. I'm claiming the firearm and I tell the court that this is the valid registration certificate for my firearm, which is exhibit A, but it doesn't have the same serial number. That is the issue. As the expert witness, would you be able to respond to my question as to whether or not that is a valid registration? Or is that proof of ownership? Certainly the registration certificate should be proof of ownership.

Mr. Murray Smith: As an expert witness who has gone to court many times, I think if the court is being asked to determine ownership of the firearm, then any—

The Chair: I'm just going to interrupt you, because I think where the officer is going with this is that it's an unfair question. He wouldn't be allowed. It's not up to him to usurp the authority of the court. The court would have to determine that. If I were either defence counsel or the crown, I wouldn't let him answer the question. I'd object.

Mr. Jack Ramsay: Are you saying you're not allowing him to answer my question?

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

The Chair: No. He's just saying to you...you put it in that framework, though, Jack. If you're on the stand as an expert witness and what conclusion do you draw from this...it's an improper conclusion for a court witness to draw. It's the judge's job.

Mr. Jack Ramsay: I'd hand some witness my proof of ownership, which is the registration card. But if the serial numbers are different...again I come back to the fact that maybe you're not the person for me to ask that question to, but if I produce a certificate with a different serial number, how can I claim ownership of that firearm?

• 1700

I'm beginning to think you can't answer that question as an expert witness. That doesn't fall into your fields.

Mr. Murray Smith: No, it doesn't, and I wouldn't expect any of the firearms examiners any of the regional laboratories in the RCMP to comment on that either.

Mr. Jack Ramsay: Okay, that's fine, then. Thank you, Mr. Smith.

The Chair: I know you wanted to say something.

Mr. Richard Mosley: Well, actually it was my instinct as a former trial lawyer. I wanted to object to the question as well.

The Chair: Yes, I know: let's get in here and clean this up.

Mr. Richard Mosley: But you took care of that very handily, Madam Chair.

The Chair: Could I ask you a question, Mr. Mosley? It occurred to me during all of this that in regard to the centre in Miramichi, the registration system itself is going to produce jobs.

Mr. Richard Mosley: It will certainly produce jobs.

The Chair: How many?

Mr. Richard Mosley: I think that remains to be determined, but I would assume no less than 90 jobs, and at full production there may well be 250 jobs, on a shift basis, working at that site to put through the volume of material they'll have to deal with.

The Chair: ACOA is not paying for any of it, are they?

Mr. Richard Mosley: Not a cent, regrettably.

Mr. Jack Ramsay: I'd like to ask Mr. Mosley, seeing as he interjected on my line of thought with Mr. Smith, does a registration certificate also amount to proof of ownership of a firearm?

Mr. Richard Mosley: I think it could be used for that purpose by someone where ownership might be in doubt for whatever reason. If the individual could show, for example, that they had registered a firearm of that description, it could assist them in establishing....

Like any other evidence, indicia of ownership is a term that's often used. It's very difficult sometimes. People can't adequately identify their own property because they may not have recorded the serial number on it or they may not have taken other steps to do so. Any piece of evidence that seems to suggest, yes, that is the property of X can be employed for that purpose.

I don't think registration is definitive. It would never be relied on for that purpose. But it is another piece of evidence that could help.

The point that concerned me about your line of questioning was, as the chair has indicated, it really goes beyond the expertise of the firearms examiner before the court. It would be a matter for the court to determine, based on all of the evidence.

Mr. Jack Ramsay: If I have a registration certificate that matches my firearm in all ten areas, is that not proof that I own that firearm?

Mr. Richard Mosley: It is to the extent that a trier of fact is prepared to accept it as evidence of ownership. I wouldn't describe it as proof.

Mr. Jack Ramsay: If it is not proof, then why would you return it to me if it were found at the scene of a crime? Why would you bring it back to me if it is not proof of ownership?

Mr. Richard Mosley: It may be the best evidence of ownership. I can't give a categorical answer to that question.

It's like a bill of sale, Mr. Ramsay. A bill of sale is simply evidence of ownership in the person to whom it's made out. That may be contradicted by other evidence that is presented to whoever is trying to determine what the reality of it is. Somebody may be able to describe the article to an extent that it satisfies the trier of fact, by the police if they're returning something, that yes, this guy is the owner of this article. I think the registration is very good evidence that this belongs to the person to whom it's registered.

The Chair: Thank you.

It's 5.05 p.m. and we have another appointment. I want to thank all of you for coming. I'm sure those of you who didn't get a chance to answer Jack's questions were riveted—

Mr. Jack Ramsay: Bitterly disappointed.

The Chair: —and riveted by the action in the room.

Thanks a lot. I know it was a lot of work, and I know we did it on short notice. We're hoping to have your amendments by Monday. We have to keep this thing moving.

The meeting is adjourned.