Legislative Assembly of Ontario

DRAFT REPORT CONTROL OF AMMUNITION AND COMMUNITY-BASED CRIME PREVENTION INITIATIVES

CONTENTS

Tuesday 21 June 1994

Draft report: Control of ammunition and community-based crime prevention initiatives

STANDING COMMITTEE ON ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE

*Chair / Président: Marchese, Rosario (Fort York ND)

Vice-Chair / Vice-Président: Harrington, Margaret H. (Niagara Falls ND)

*Akande, Zanana L. (St Andrew-St Patrick ND)

Bisson, Gilles (Cochrane South/-Sud ND)

*Chiarelli, Robert (Ottawa West/-Ouest L)

Curling, Alvin (Scarborough North/-Nord L)

*Haeck, Christel (St Catharines-Brock ND)

*Harnick, Charles (Willowdale PC)

*Malkowski, Gary (York East/-Est ND)

*Murphy, Tim (St George-St David L)

*Tilson, David (Dufferin-Peel PC)

*Winninger, David (London South/-Sud ND)

*In attendance / présents

Substitutions present/ Membres remplaçants présents:

Huget, Bob (Sarnia ND) for Ms Harrington

Mills, Gordon (Durham East/-Est ND) for Mr Bisson

Owens, Stephen (Scarborough Centre ND) for Ms Harrington

Also taking part / Autres participants et participantes:

Mills, Gordon, parliamentary assistant to Solicitor General

Clerk / Greffière: Bryce, Donna

Staff / Personnel: McNaught, Andrew, research officer, Legislative Research Service

The committee met at 1558 in room 228.

DRAFT REPORT CONTROL OF AMMUNITION AND COMMUNITY-BASED CRIME PREVENTION INITIATIVES

The Chair (Mr Rosario Marchese): The committee is dealing with a standing order 108 designation on the control of ammunition and community-based crime prevention initiatives. We are here to talk about the writing of our report. We have a paper by Mr McNaught; perhaps that could be the basis on which we can begin the discussion. Each caucus has had an opportunity to review whatever has been submitted to the respective members. At the appropriate moment, some of you may want to talk about how you want to feed your suggestions into this report, or do something different if you like.

Mr Robert Chiarelli (Ottawa West): Can I have a point of clarification? We have a motion setting out the parameters of this particular discussion. One part of the motion deals with the control of the purchase and sale of ammunition, and we now have a motion of the committee referring Bill 151 to the House leaders for consideration. We should probably, when we're dealing with that part of the report, keep in mind that the decision has already been made for 151 to be dealt with during the summer; we may want to make reference to 151 in terms of any of the recommendations that deal with that aspect of the report.

In a sense, we've pre-empted one of the possible decisions the committee could have made in dealing with this particular report. We pre-empted that yesterday by saying we will recommend that Bill 151 be dealt with in the summer. I just wanted to put that on record.

The other thing I want to put on the record is that, given the motion that was referred to the committee dealing with the 108 matter and the evidence and the briefs we received, I want to commend the researcher for having, in my opinion, captured the gist of what has been recommended to the committee and, in a sense, provided what may be considered two clear options for the committee to consider. In point of fact, it might be suggested that both options might even be considered concurrently. I just wanted to put that on the record.

The Chair: Further discussion on the report?

Mr David Winninger (London South): I expect we'll be looking at it line by line or paragraph by paragraph, but I did want to make some reference to the same point Mr Chiarelli raised.

Bill 151 having been referred to the committee, and presumably it will be the subject of committee hearings and clause-by-clause in due course, I think it's premature to adopt a recommendation that says this committee supports Bill 151. I think we need to hear from the public on that and take a close look at the bill. I'm not quite sure why, as it wasn't part of the mandate of this committee to deal with Bill 151 at this stage, we need even refer to it. It may be that there are principles Bill 151 is based on that we may wish to affirm. However, I do have a problem with that particular recommendation.

The parliamentary assistant for the Solicitor General unfortunately couldn't be here, so I'm making some comments in that regard in his absence.

Mr Chiarelli: In response, I may have misspoken or you may have misinterpreted what I said. I was not suggesting that this committee recommend approval of Bill 151 in any way, shape or form. I was trying to suggest that there are a number of comments in here with respect to possible additions or amendments to the legislation, and I hope this committee would refer those recommendations, or such ones as we agree on, to the committee for consideration when Bill 151 is considered, because I think some of the suggestions and recommendations for amendments are very useful and worthwhile and certainly I would support consideration of a number of them. It was not to preclude anything else.

Mr Tim Murphy (St George-St David): On another issue, some of the government members went away yesterday indicating that they might be reconsidering their vote on yesterday's motion. I'm wondering if there's any news on that.

The Chair: We're here today on a standing order 108 designation: control of ammunition. Are you wishing to speak to that, or no?

Mr Murphy: I want to make a point about the ordering of our business. There was an indication that the government might come back with a different view, and I'm wondering whether there was any indication of that.

The Chair: Mr Murphy, it's an inappropriate time to raise your point. We've started in this committee to deal with this and we're into the debate about the report-writing, and you're saying, "Let's change the order of the agenda."

Mr Murphy: Yes, I guess I am.

The Chair: It's out of order.

Speaking to the report, further suggestions on how to proceed? We can proceed by going into the report on a page-by-page basis, if you like. Shall we do that? Mr McNaught can go page by page and people can comment or make additions or changes as we do that. Agreed? All right. If there are comments by people, we can take them page by page.

Mr Charles Harnick (Willowdale): Before we start going through it page by page, I suggest we proceed with this report by at least agreeing on the structure we want the report to follow in terms of how the thing is going to flow, and then we can plug in the areas Mr McNaught has outlined. I think as a committee we really should decide on the structure we want to follow.

The Chair: Some suggestions?

Mr Harnick: Thinking about what many of the people who appeared before the committee said, it seems to me that every one of them indicated, almost without reservation, that the control of ammunition is preferably in the hands of the federal government. What they all said, almost unanimously, was that the best purpose they could see of the proposed Bill 151 was to use it to force the federal government to enact legislation dealing with the control of ammunition.

The reason they said that was because not a single one of the witnesses who appeared here thought a province could effectively control the sale and distribution of ammunition, quite simply because so much ammunition and so many guns come across the border unimpeded or come from other provinces, over which the province of Ontario really has no control. I understand as many as 5,000 rounds of ammunition come across the border every day.

It seems to me that what we should be doing is reciting the fact that all these reservations have been set out for us, indicating that, as a last resort, the province should enact a bill such as Bill 151 for the very purpose of forcing the federal government to deal with this issue, because dealing with it on a provincial basis is nothing more than a statement of something we would like to see be effected but that can't truly be effective in the hands of the provincial government.

I think that the report should be set up --

The Chair: Does what you are about to lead to fit into any one of the elements in the report so you could make a recommendation to that effect, or no?

Mr Harnick: What I think we ought to do is deal with all the reservations that people have about the province entering the field of ammunition control, because all the witnesses said it wouldn't be very effective. Then what they did say, almost to a person, was: "We wish the federal government would deal with this because they can deal with it in the most effective way, but because they won't deal with it, we hope the province does. If anything, maybe that will force them into dealing with control of the sale and distribution of ammunition." Then, I think, we go into what Bill 151 would accomplish.

But I think it's folly to say to the public that Bill 151 is going to be effective in dealing with the sale and distribution of ammunition. The reason we're going to pass Bill 151 is quite simply because we want to force the federal government into dealing with it, so that would be very much the way I think the report should be written. I don't think the report should make more of Bill 151 than really exists. All the experts said Bill 151 is a great idea if we want to go ahead and use whatever means are at our disposal to force the federal government to deal with an issue it should be dealing with. But let's not mislead the public who are going to read our report into believing that Bill 151 is the solution for the problems which exist with the sale and distribution of ammunition. Quite clearly, the weight of the evidence was that that is not so.

I don't know whether you want a motion or how you want to proceed, Mr Chair, but it would be my suggestion to the committee to lay this out in a way that provides some realistic perspective for the people who are going to read the report.

The Chair: Let me get some feedback from the members.

1610

Mr Chiarelli: First of all, I'm a little disappointed with the comments. Not that I disagree with the substance of what Mr Harnick referred to, but last week we made a decision to instruct the researcher to prepare a draft report. The researcher prepared a draft report. We have it before us. We've had an opportunity to review it. The draft report reflects more or less the substance of what the witnesses said when they came before us, and I think Mr Harnick's concerns can be met and debated as we go through the draft report.

It's fair comment that there was significant weight of submission that would hope that the federal government would move in this particular area. I think the accommodations to Mr Harnick's concerns can be met. For example, we do have two proposals. One of them is a recommendation to the federal government. Indeed, we can still proceed and make a fair recommendation and a strong recommendation to the federal government, in accordance with one of the options we have in the draft report.

That does not preclude us from proceeding with recommendations for a bill of one type or another, Bill 151 or some amended version of Bill 151, and we would certainly be able to provide a preamble in that part of our recommendation which indicates that we are moving into this area reluctantly because we would have preferred that the federal government move on it; indeed we're recommending that the federal government move on it. Notwithstanding that, we've had recommendations and we have a list of possible suggestions and recommendations with respect to all kinds of details that might be in the bill, and we can deal with that. We can deal with that within the framework or the premise that we're doing it because the federal government isn't there; we're doing it for leadership purposes. We might even want to recommend in our report that if Bill 151, with amendments or additions, is passed, that it be proclaimed only if the federal government has not moved in this particular area.

I think we can accommodate Mr Harnick's concerns. I think we can accommodate a strong recommendation on the part of the government members to urge the federal government to move. I think we can move with Bill 151, within Mr Harnick's premise, saying we're proceeding with this in the absence of federal government action. The draft report is a good framework for us to deal with all aspects of it. I'm not excluding Mr Harnick's comments at all in dealing with this framework.

The Chair: Mr Chiarelli is speaking to the way in which the report is written and that Mr Harnick's comments could be accommodated, if that were the direction you choose. Page 9 is where this speaks to the kinds of things both of you are talking about.

Mr Chiarelli: The report talks about one option being a strong recommendation to the federal government for action. We can proceed with that. I see nothing contradictory about doing that and then looking at a reasonable ammunition bill that we could deal with and move along the legislative process, with Mr Harnick's premise that we would prefer the federal government to move and that we're moving in it reluctantly and we hope it pushes the federal government. I see nothing mutually exclusive about both options.

Mr Winninger: The point has been made about the restrictions on Ontario's jurisdiction in many of these issues. Certainly, it's true that we can't control the importation of arms and ammunition, nor can we necessarily govern what comes in from other provinces.

The section of the report that deals with constitutional issues might be a little one-sided in that when Professor Swinton came before this committee, she indicated that she believes the closer the law seems to traditional concerns of criminal law, the more it looks like the province is trying to fill a perceived gap in criminal law. It's mentioned in the report, somewhat obliquely, that gun control has always been a federal issue, and that's what Professor Swinton said when she came, that the provincial government is arguably trying to make gun control work better by working on the ammunition side while the federal government is working on the gun side. There may in fact be more weight given to a constitutional challenge should we recommend movement in the direction the report seems to be going.

I think we have to be quite clear about and mindful of the restrictions on our own provincial jurisdiction. It seems to me that we need to urge the federal government to move on this. At the same time, we need to examine a little further, in the context of the hearings on Bill 151, what our options might be as a province to control the distribution or sale of ammunition.

We have to be very careful just how we couch our recommendations. I agree to a certain extent with Mr Harnick, that we need to recognize the limitations of this province. I know he's quite shocked and surprised that I'd be agreeing with him, but when he speaks words of common sense and wisdom, I tend to support him. When the researcher is trying to incorporate our suggestions, both sides of the constitutional discussion have to be brought out a little more clearly so that the recommendation will fully recognize the limits on provincial jurisdiction.

I could go on, but I know Mr Mills wants to speak as well, and there are others on the other side.

The Chair: The discussion is on Mr Harnick's original suggestion about structure and how to fit it in and so on.

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): My comment is much to the same point as Mr Winninger was talking about. I may be getting into the possible recommendation number 1, but two legal people came to the committee, came voluntarily, as I understand it. I don't think we retained them. Is my assumption correct, that we didn't retain those individuals?

The Chair: We did give them a per diem, as we had agreed.

Mr Tilson: So they were providing a legal opinion, is what our position is.

The Chair: That's right.

Mr Tilson: Thank you. I wasn't aware of that.

Mr Gordon Mills (Durham East): I would have liked to be here in the beginning to make these comments. I'm here as the parliamentary assistant to the Solicitor General.

I want to remind the members of this committee that Bill 151 was not referred to this committee. That's the first point I want to make.

The second point I want to make is that I'm most concerned about the confidentiality of this report, which was reported upon in the press over the weekend and widely discussed. I had telephone calls from people in the media asking me to comment on it, which brings me to the third and final point I want to make.

I sat here last week as a duly subbed-in member of this committee. This report was given to the committee members on Friday for their perusal. I was denied that report. My office called about this report and we were told we were not entitled to that report. I'm quite perturbed about this because I, in my role, report to our minister and the ministry staff, and we had no opportunity to discuss this over the weekend whatsoever. Despite my staff making several phone calls to tell them that I was subbed on this committee, I was denied this report, which did not arrive until yesterday afternoon by fax at about quarter to 1. I just want to get those things on the record.

1620

The Chair: Mr Mills, I'd like Ms Bryce to comment on that for the record as well.

Clerk of the Committee (Ms Donna Bryce): I just want to say that we did neglect to send you the copy of the report with the other members Friday afternoon. On Monday morning, when I was reviewing the material, I realized that we had not given it to you, so I called your office and told them I would be sending it over. To my knowledge, nobody in my office said you were not entitled to the report.

Mr Mills: I beg to differ, because my legislative assistant told me she had considerable discussion with somebody in your office and they were denying that and told her in no uncertain terms, "You're not getting it." I take offence at that.

The Chair: Thank you for your comments.

Mr Mills: Before we carry on, is there any comment in terms of the confidentiality of this report? What happened? It says here it's confidential.

The Chair: Mr Mills, we don't know what happens if information is leaked when we write on a document that it is confidential. Other than your reminder for people to remember that the report is still confidential, I'm not sure what else we can say if information is somehow leaked to someone in some way or other.

Mr Mills: As the parliamentary assistant to the Solicitor General, I was embarrassed, because I was asked to comment about a leaked document that I'd never seen.

The Chair: We understand. You made your point.

Mr Chiarelli: I was just going to move that we declare this not a confidential document.

Mr Tilson: Just a point of order on the matter raised by Mr Mills. We do receive documents, and this is an example, where it's stamped "confidential." We got a memo from the clerk's office saying it is confidential until it's been tabled with the House. If this is confidential -- and that's an interesting topic for debate -- should these be open proceedings? I'm just returning to Mr Mills's point. Otherwise, why are we stamping things "confidential" and saying they're confidential?

The Chair: In the future, we should all decide prior to issuing a document whether or not we want it to be confidential. It may be that members don't want it to be confidential in fact, that it can be a very public document. That's something we should decide in advance of a document coming to us so we don't have to worry about this particular problem. But given that we didn't, we tend to put "confidential" on documents, as a general rule. I'd rather move on, unless there's something else to this particular issue.

Mr Tilson: Are you saying that these are not confidential proceedings?

The Chair: Mr Chiarelli said, "I move that this not be confidential." We can deal with that immediately and have a discussion about that, if you want, or just vote on that.

Mr Winninger: This is not confidentiality, but it's related to that issue. When we give very general instructions to our researcher, it places him in a very difficult, sometimes compromising position. He has to guess about what this committee's recommendations might be. The draft report gets circulated; it says "confidential" on it; it says it on the letter; it's brought home. Someone here who received a copy leaked it; that's quite clear. The press don't get these copies just by magic.

This won't be the last report of this nature, and we certainly had a lot of trouble with the draft report on victims of crime that was leaked. It appears to the people who read these newspapers that this committee has come to some conclusions and has made some recommendations it's never really had a chance to discuss.

My point is this. Perhaps in the future we should consider our past experience and whether we should be asking the researcher to draft recommendations, or whether that's something more properly done here. Then we don't have this problem where the parliamentary assistant to the Solicitor General is approached about recommendations this committee made that we're disavowing today or in the future.

The Chair: I understand the point. I'm not sure whether we want to solve the issue of confidentiality of reports today, other than the fact that a number of you made statements that this has been let out and that that constitutes a problem. For the future, we can talk about how to deal with reports, but I'd rather not do that at this moment with respect to how we deal with documents in general.

Mr Winninger: I realize that, but let's not forget our unfortunate experience this time.

The Chair: I agree, and those comments are on the record. Can we move on?

Mr Tilson: So this is not a confidential report. We didn't vote on it, but is that --

The Chair: Well, he's moving that this document not have "confidential" on it. You could put "draft" on a document.

Ms Christel Haeck (St Catharines-Brock): That's actually what I was going to suggest. One of the problems in putting "confidential" on it is that it has a certain aura about it that it really, I would think, doesn't quite deserve. It is in fact a draft. It is at this point the culmination of Mr McNaught's work, and obviously there are some differences of opinion about what's in the document.

Personally, with regard to Ms Swinton's testimony, my recollection was that she said that any movement on the part of the province would in all likelihood be open to a challenge in terms of going into an area that was normally reserved for the federal government, though she said it would seem that the province might be acting on a public health issue. There was obviously some doubt in her mind. I didn't think she gave an overriding approval to this particular issue, but I, along with others, stand to be clarified on that issue.

To me, following up on some of the discussion of my colleagues, and living where I do along the border, it is really an issue for us, a lot of the time, of what is coming across the border and it is a jurisdictional issue. The federal government, to my mind, has to be the largest player in the effort of controlling guns and ammunition.

How this has been written is really a concern for me, this sense of approval of how some of the legal people we had invited to attend might have viewed this particular issue. I didn't come away with that impression. I came away with the impression that the two constitutional experts were divided on this, not as much in favour. That's my recollection. As I say, I can always stand to be corrected, but having listened to the two presenters, particularly Ms Swinton, I felt there was a difference of opinion.

The Chair: Mr Chiarelli, on the issue of "draft" versus "confidential."

Mr Chiarelli: I'm going to move a motion now that the document, Report on Control of Ammunition and Community-Based Crime Prevention Initiatives, be deemed to be a public draft document for use by this committee. That's my motion, and I want to comment on it. I want to say that I accept Mr Winninger's comments and I accept Mr Harnick's comment. By way of example only, I want to suggest that if we look at the recommendations, it says "possible recommendation No 1" on page 9 and it goes to "or, possible recommendation No 2." I want to suggest that we can incorporate the substance of both of those recommendations within the premise suggested by Mr Harnick.

The Chair: Mr Chiarelli, could we just separate the two? I wanted to come back to that as a separate issue.

Mr Chiarelli: I want to comment on them together first, and then we can maybe consider separating them. For example, look at possible recommendation 1: "The committee supports, in principle, controls on the sale of ammunition. It also recognizes that the province would have constitutional authority to legislate in this area. However, it is the committee's view that ammunition control is, in essence, a form of gun control. As such, the committee believes this is an issue that can be most effectively dealt with at the federal level" -- and I might suggest slightly different wording from here on -- "on a national basis. However, the committee recommends that Ontario enact its own ammunition control legislation. This might encourage the federal government to take leadership in this area."

Continuing, "In addition, the committee believes the practical difficulties associated with the enforcement of provincial ammunition control legislation, particularly if other provinces do not follow Ontario's lead, would" -- and instead of saying "outweigh the legislation's benefits" you could say -- "diminish the legislation's benefits."

Down below, the second paragraph, you might consider saying, "The provincial government should urge the federal government to regulate sale of ammunition" etc.

Making that kind of change in recommendation 1, we can move into recommendation 2 and say that the committee, having delivered a strong message to the federal government to move in this area and having decided that in the absence of federal government action we would want to look at a provincial bill, then the provincial bill could include the type of recommendations included on pages 11, 12, 13 and 14, and we could basically accommodate both points of view at the same time.

That's the rationale behind my motion to consider this a draft public document.

The Chair: Speaking to the motion about whether this should be a draft report or a confidential report, any further discussion? All in favour?

Interjection.

Mr Chiarelli: The motion is only to consider this a draft public document, and then that'll be a starting point for our discussions.

The Chair: Should I put the motion again? Do you want to speak to it? Do you want to recess? What do you want to do?

Mr Winninger: I would like a two-minute recess.

The Chair: A two-minute recess.

The committee recessed from 1633 to 1641.

The Chair: Back to the motion Mr Chiarelli made.

Mr Mills: I have a friendly amendment I want to make. I want to have an amendment in the beginning of this recognizing that this report has not been endorsed by the committee and then get on and say that it's a draft. We want to make it clear that this draft report hasn't been endorsed by the committee. I understand that once we pass that, if we do, we're going to go on and examine this document page by page and make amendments and deletions and recommendations.

Mr Chiarelli: Prior to that amendment, could we rephrase the motion that's there?

Mr Mills: Try it.

Mr Chiarelli: "Whereas the committee has not yet dealt with the substance of the draft report, and whereas the committee wishes to deal with the substance of the draft report, in order to facilitate discussion of the draft report we hereby move that the report be deemed a draft report."

Mr Mills: It's a drafty amendment, but I'll accept that; I think that's all right. What do you think?

The Chair: Very well. We're ready for the vote. All in favour of the motion? Any opposed? That carries.

Mr Chiarelli: Did I talk too fast?

The Chair: No, that was rather long, but it did the trick.

Can I recommend, unless Mr Harnick has any other point based on the discussion, that we go back to Mr McNaught's report and go page by page.

Mr Harnick: I move that we just accept the report in its totality.

The Chair: Okay, there's a motion before us.

Mr Chiarelli: What happened to my motion?

The Chair: It passed.

Mr Chiarelli: So this is a draft document?

The Chair: Yes, and now Mr Harnick has moved a motion and we're open for discussion on that.

Ms Zanana L. Akande (St Andrew-St Patrick): The motion Mr Harnick has just moved is in contradiction to Mr Chiarelli's motion.

The Chair: No. All Mr Chiarelli's motion did is say that this is a draft document that is yet to be dealt with by this committee.

Mr Chiarelli: All we've done, Ms Akande, is accept this as a tabled report.

The Chair: Mr Harnick has moved a motion that we accept this report as is. Discussion on this matter? We're ready for the vote? All in favour of the motion? Opposed? The motion is defeated.

Let's go through this page by page and ask people to speak to anything on each page by way of additions or changes.

Mr Chiarelli: Let's take the word "confidential" off.

The Chair: We've done that. Page 1, on the preface: Any discussion? Any comments? Seeing none, page 2.

Mr Mills: At page 2, in the introduction, it says, "More generally, violent incidents such as `home invasions' and `carjackings' seem to have become routine news." I am proposing an amendment, that we take out the words "such as `home invasions' and `carjackings,'" as they seem to me to have a Metro focus, and replace the words "become routine news" with the words "become more frequent." I think this introduction and statement are a little alarmist. I move it be amended to read, "More generally, violent incidents seem to have become more frequent."

Mr Chiarelli: I don't disagree with you, but I would suggest it's not particular to Metro. You might achieve the same thing by saying, "More generally, violent incidents such as `home invasions' and `carjackings' seem to have become more routine news, particularly in urban areas." Does that cover the sense of what you're trying to say?

Mr Mills: I still think that's not the wording we want. It's a bit alarmist.

Mr Winninger: I tend to concur with Mr Mills, surprise, surprise. What we do know is that violent crime among young offenders has risen, in fact doubled over the past few years, but other indicators of crime have not risen dramatically. It may be that they're being reported in a more lurid and sensational way, but the fact is that the level of crime has not risen significantly over the past few years. For that reason, the wording of the introductory paragraph strikes me as being a little on the alarmist side as well and it could be toned down to a more matter-of-fact style of writing.

Ms Haeck: I wanted to again put a reflection on it from Niagara. I'm unaware of any home invasions or carjackings that have occurred in our area. I'm not even aware that anything of this sort has happened --

Ms Akande: Where do you live?

Ms Haeck: It's relatively peaceful, though if you go to Buffalo it's been known to happen. I was in the blizzard of 1977 in Fort Erie -- 13 feet of snow. It was great fun.

In any case, I truly don't see that at all. That's really putting hyperbole on what's happening in most parts of the province, even, I would say, in most parts of Metro. These are not necessarily things that are happening every day of the week.

Mr Harnick: It's no surprise that I will disagree with the last three views being expressed. I think you have to read the second paragraph in conjunction with the first paragraph to see that there is a sense of balance being sought.

The fact is that in the first paragraph there is no mention about crime statistics of any sort. It merely says there have been a number of issues. To change the first paragraph I think would belie the reason we ended up having this issue referred to the committee. I don't think there's any blame. I mean, if you put this first paragraph in, we're not blaming the government for the fact that this is happening. I think that's a certain paranoia you have.

In the first paragraph, all those things have happened, they've caused this issue to crystallize, and that's the reason it's here before the committee. But the second paragraph is very balanced:

"Some observers point out that the statistics on violent crime do not support the view that there is a serious crime problem in Ontario. Others believe that violent crime reflects a moral crisis in our society and, as such, is a problem beyond the capacity of legislators to address. Still others cite economic factors as the source of violent crime.

"While the committee is cognizant of these views, it is also sensitive to the clear demand of the public that governments take immediate action to address the problem of violent crime. Accordingly, the committee, in this report, has set out a number of steps" etc.

1650

But the fact is, we have violent incidents, we have home invasions, we have carjackings. We had the murder of a young woman in a downtown Toronto restaurant. We had the drive-by shooting in Ottawa. That is exactly why these issues crystallized and are in front of us now. If these things didn't happen, and if we were afraid to talk about them, we wouldn't be sitting in this committee dealing with this issue.

I say to you, take your heads out of the sand. That's why we're here. ViVi Leimonis was killed while she was having dessert in a restaurant. That was something that shocked the city of Toronto and was very much responsible for ultimately having this issue sent to this committee. Do we want to deny that? If you want to deny that, then say so. Say these things don't happen in the city of Toronto and see how your report is received. You'll have no credibility at all.

Mr Chiarelli: I'm going to suggest a change in wording around the sentence that was raised by Mr Mills, and it will not change the substance of what Mr Harnick was saying. It would read something like:

"More generally, violent incidents have become routine news, with increased media profile, and the police are telling us that the use of handguns in the commission of robberies and assaults is increasing. As well, violence in our schools has increased over the last several years."

I don't think anybody can deny those what I feel to be facts. Indeed, the Minister of Education has adopted a policy which is premised on an increase in violence in the schools. I don't think we can contest that "More generally, violent incidents have become routine news, with increased media profile," and also that the police indeed are saying that the increase in use of guns is a fact we have to deal with.

We're not commenting on the overall statistics. We're not getting into that fight. We're just making some very plain, simple statements that are behind the reason we're here today. Does that address your concerns, Gordon?

Mr Mills: I could buy into that if you said "more frequent" rather than "routine." It seems like it's happening every day, and it isn't.

The Chair: I think it would be useful to repeat that, Mr Chiarelli. If you're going to do that, can I suggest that rather than adding the violence in the schools as a separate thought which doesn't seem to flow, you might want to build it in in the beginning.

Mr Chiarelli: I'm just using that as a second point. We're saying that the police are telling us that the use of guns in the commission of robberies and assaults is increasing, and there is also evidence that violence in the schools has increased. Basically, I'm putting those two points together as part of the triggers that are pushing us into this exercise.

Everything stays the same up to "in this province." Then starting there, we say:

"More generally, violent incidents have become routine news, with increased media attention" or "profile, and the police are telling us that the use of guns in the commission of robberies and assaults is increasing; as well, violence in our schools has increased over the last several years."

Mr Mills: I hate to belabour the point, but I've said it about three times. I have difficulty with "routine news." I'm saying we'd be happy with "more frequent," because I don't subscribe to this as being "routine".

Mr Chiarelli: I agree. "More generally, violent incidents have become more frequent, with increased media profile."

Mr Winninger: With reference to your point about increasing violence in the schools, I don't deny that. But if you're going to put in a reference to that in the introduction, we have to bring in reference to our violence-in-the-schools strategy.

Mr Mills: Later on.

Mr Winninger: Later on. It's either one with the other or not at all.

Mr Chiarelli: You may want to put "which has necessitated a provincial government policy in this area," period, and then it's addressed.

Mr Winninger: If you're going to raise it, we need to have a paragraph indicating that the government has taken the initiative with the anti-violence strategy in the schools and say what it is.

Mr Chiarelli: "Has taken certain initiatives."

The Chair: Mr Winninger is suggesting that if we support that language, he will be proposing some change or amendment at some point.

Mr Chiarelli: I don't see any problem putting in the reality of the Minister of Education responding to the need in that area.

Ms Akande: I'm very agreeable to the way you have included "increased media attention." I wonder if we could change it around so that the horse is before the cart and say, "More generally, violent incidents seem to receive increased media attention and so have become more frequent news." I think that's really what's happened. The fact that the media focus more intently on those particular incidents, almost to the exclusion of all else -- because let's face it, it does sell papers -- is the reason it has become more frequent news.

That's what the second paragraph is really saying. A lot of people are saying that the statistics don't support that it's more frequent but that really it's the media. I think that would leave the same two clauses in but put them in a way that would almost explain the very second paragraph that you want included.

Mr Chiarelli: Can you phrase exactly what you mean so we can put it into context?

The Chair: If you can just paraphrase the sense of it. This will come back to us, obviously, for a final review.

Ms Akande: "More generally, violent incidents have received increased media attention and so become more frequent news." That's not polished, and I would be willing to do it. It says the same two things, but it really talks about cause and effect.

The Chair: Do you like that, Mr Chiarelli?

Mr Chiarelli: That's fine.

The Chair: Very well. Moving on, on the same page.

Mr Mills: The next paragraph I have no problem with, but on the one after that, the third paragraph, I have to say something. If you want to get some opinion about the second paragraph: Is that okay? Is everyone happy with that? Okay.

Let's move to paragraph 3. It says, "While the committee... is also sensitive to the clear demand.... Accordingly, the committee, in this report, has set out a number of steps it feels the provincial government can take in the area of ammunition control and community-based crime prevention initiatives."

I think this gives an impression that the government has done nothing, and I want to draw to your attention the gun amnesty and the provincial weapons enforcement unit as recent examples of the government's response. Rather than doing nothing, I think we have done quite a bit, and I would like to have that recognized in that paragraph: "...to address the problem of violent crime. Accordingly... have introduced the gun amnesty and the provincial weapons enforcement unit as examples of the government's response."

The Chair: Mr Mills, the way you're phrasing it makes it appear that that is the answer to this question, versus other things that flow out of this report.

Mr Chiarelli: Can we also be more specific on what the government hasn't done?

Mr Mills: My reflection on this paragraph is that it suggests that the government needs to take immediate action to address this problem, as though we've done nothing. But I'm saying to you, Bob, that we have done something. Those two initiatives should be in there. We've got the amnesty and we've got the provincial weapons enforcement unit as an example of our government's response to this problem.

1700

Mr Chiarelli: Can we address that by saying, "While the committee is cognizant of these views, it is also sensitive to the clear demand of the public that governments" -- you see, they're talking governments generally here -- "in addition to steps already taken, take additional immediate action..." without being specific?

Mr Mills: Then it goes on to say "steps it feels the provincial government can take in the areas of" these initiatives. It doesn't mention that we've done some initiatives.

The Chair: Mr Chiarelli's saying that rather than naming the specifics, we can say "in addition to some of the initiatives the government has already taken" --

Mr Chiarelli: That "it take additional action" or "additional measures to address the problem of violent crime." We're saying some measures have been taken. We're not specifying them. You can list them all you want, till you're blue in face. We've acknowledged they exist without going into specifics. If we want the option to say you haven't taken enough, from a political perspective, we can always say that outside the report. We can simply say that we're recommending that additional steps be taken immediately.

Mr Mills: Yes. I just raised those two as two issues we've done.

Mr Harnick: I think it's fine the way it is, but if Mr Mills wants to start talking about government accomplishments in this area, they've been few and far between. I recollect that the amnesty program was suggested in a question by Mike Harris. It wasn't until Mike Harris asked that question in the Legislature that the Solicitor General thought an amnesty program might be a great idea, and thereupon he developed this amnesty program.

Mr Mills: That's not quite true.

Interjections.

Mr Harnick: Just a second. All I'm saying is, if we want to start talking about one's accomplishments, let's talk about everyone's accomplishments, not just the government's. It's really a waste of everyone's time to sit here if the members of the government, particularly the parliamentary assistant, have some sort of paranoia in the sense that every paragraph is going to have to exonerate the government for this, that or the other thing, or that every paragraph is going to be taken as a criticism of the government. That is not the spirit in which we should be writing this report.

I look at this report and I don't see that there's any criticism of the government in there. We're trying to sit down as a committee in a non-partisan way and write a report. If with every suggestion we say, "The reason that suggestion's being made is because the government's doing a terrible job in the area of law enforcement and we better put in something to say it's not," we're just wasting our time here. I read that paragraph and I don't see any criticism of the government in there. If that's the way we're going to proceed, I just don't want to waste my time.

Mr Chiarelli: I'm sure that both Mr Winninger on behalf his party and Mr Harnick on behalf of his party would acknowledge that Mr Christopherson and Mr Harris probably have the same level of mental acumen and they probably came up with the idea for the amnesty at the same time.

Mr Harnick: I won't acknowledge that, because it was Mr Harris's idea.

Ms Akande: I have a solution. Why don't we just throw in the word "additional"? "Accordingly, the committee, in this report, has set out a number of additional steps it feels the provincial government can take in the areas of ammunition control and community-based crime prevention initiatives."

Mr Harnick: Additional to what? Additional to the amnesty they stole from Mike Harris. You don't say that.

The Chair: If you simply say, "Accordingly, the committee, in this report, has set out a number of additional steps" --

Mr Harnick: "That can be taken." Leave out the words "provincial government" altogether.

Ms Akande: Now you're being testy.

The Chair: Ms Akande has suggested "has set out a number of additional steps."

Mr Harnick: I don't want to leave the wrong impression. I just don't think it's productive to sit down and try and do this report if everybody is doing it with a view either to take credit for something they did or didn't do -- I mean, if we're going to be paranoid that this is a criticism of the government, let me put it on the record: It's not a criticism of the government. It's a committee report to recommend additional things that the government can be doing. If you want to put the word "additional" in, go ahead and put it in. But I don't think it's productive that we sit here and some members view every line in this as a criticism of the government. That's not the purpose.

Mr Chiarelli: I was going to move a motion basically adopting what Ms Akande has suggested. So it reads, "While the committee is cognizant of these views, it is also sensitive to the clear demand of the public that the provincial government take additional, immediate action to address the problem of violent crime."

The Chair: Is that a wording you can live with?

Mr Mills: It sounds reasonable to me. We just want to clear up that void that nothing is happening. That's fine.

The Chair: Okay. Without taking motions in these areas, as long as we get a general sense of agreement, I prefer not to take motions.

Mr Winninger: I just was a little concerned about the style of "additional, immediate action." "Additional action immediately" sounds better to my ear, but I could be wrong. It happens once every century.

Mr Chiarelli: Do you want to take "immediate" out and put in "timely"? "Take additional, timely action"?

Mr Winninger: I'm using your words.I'm just saying "additional action immediately."

The Chair: I think we're saying the same thing.

Mr Chiarelli: Yes, "take timely action" or "timely steps." Are you not a former teacher? Why don't you correct our grammar?

Ms Akande: I am. I just heard it was rude to do so.

Mr Winninger: I'm comfortable with "timely action." I'm comfortable with "additional action."

Mr Chiarelli: "Additional timely action."

Mr Winninger: "Additional and timely."

Mr Mills: "Additional and timely action."

The Chair: Okay? Moving on, so we can try to finish the report.

Mr Mills: I want to move along, Mr Chairman, to page 3 and the part where it says, "In this regard" --

Mr Chiarelli: Excuse me. Can I go back to page 2?

The Chair: We haven't finished page 2? All right.

Mr Chiarelli: "Currently, the only restriction on the purchasing of ammunition is that it is illegal to sell ammunition to a person under 16 years of age, unless the person holds a valid...." I would like some reference to be in there, because it's the fact and I've had personal experience and I've referred to it in Hansard in the House, that even the 16-year-old age limit is not being respected. For example, I had a personal discussion with the owner of a hunting and fishing store in my riding and he basically said he has no problem and in fact he does sell to 14-, 15- and 16-year-olds. I think there should be some reference there to the fact that even the 16-year age limit is not being enforced. It's certainly not being enforced at the provincial level by municipal police forces. I don't know whether any of the federal agencies are enforcing it, but it is not even being enforced. They don't ask age limits. They don't ask for proof of age.

I would like to suggest here some wording along the lines of, "Currently, the only restriction on the purchasing of ammunition is that it is illegal to sell ammunition to a person under 16 years of age (with questionable enforcement of that age limit)," in parentheses, "unless the person holds a valid minors..." etc. I'd like some reference in there parenthetically that there's very limited enforcement of the age limit at present. I'm willing to leave that as a direction to the researcher to put in a parenthetical comment about the fact that there's limited enforcement even of the 16-year age requirement.

1710

The Chair: If there is agreement to that, I was going to suggest the same thing, that perhaps we leave it to Andrew to rephrase rather than adding it parenthetically, so it flows a little better. Is there agreement with that?

Mr Mills: Basically, it's pretty straightforward and harmless, but I would hate to have any connotations that young people are prone to this. It's a general statement you're making here, and I think we have to be quite careful about that. I personally have a problem. If someone goes into a store to buy ammunition and they're not a licensed driver and they have no other documentation on them, does that mean that person has to run home and get a birth certificate or something?

The Chair: Mr Chiarelli is raising the question of enforceability. He's saying that even though it is illegal to sell to individuals under 16 years of age, enforcing that isn't happening.

Mr Mills: I think we have to be careful with talking about young people generally, that's all.

Mr Chiarelli: In a number of instances, including the Ottawa drive-by shooting, it was very clear that it was legally store-bought bullets used in an illegal gun, and in fact we have some indication that in the recent fatality of a policeman again it was legally purchased ammunition in an illegal gun.

The Chair: If people feel this is an issue --

Mr Mills: I don't think it's a big issue. I just wanted to make those comments. I don't think it's an issue to keep on about.

Mr Harnick: I think we should be somewhat careful in adding things that we really didn't hear from the people who appeared before us. We have to be careful about making up scenarios that we believe exist but don't have any empirical evidence to indicate that it's so. What impressed me about this paper, having read it, is that it sticks very much to the things that people came here to say. When we start adding things that we may believe are fact yet we really don't have anything to base that on other than our personal belief, we have to be very careful.

If we're adding words that indicate there's a significant level of non-enforcement by ammunition sellers who sell habitually to people under the age of 16 without proof, we don't know that and no one came and told us that.

Mr Chiarelli: That's not true.

Mr Harnick: Then show me where that was in the evidence, and then we can put it in.

Mr Chiarelli: There was a representative from the Metropolitan Toronto Police, and I specifically raised the question of young people going into places where they sell ammunition and buying it underage. I referred at that time to the incident in Ottawa as young people, underage, buying it legally over the counter, and there was agreement with my line of questioning that that was a problem. I remember very specifically asking that.

I agree with your general comment that we should be very careful, but I don't think we should be limited to what people said. We should be free to comment and consider our own sense of what could be in the report and discuss it. But in this particular instance I remember specifically raising that with one of the witnesses.

Mr Harnick: Just to reiterate --

The Chair: Mr Harnick, I think you were quite clear.

Mr Harnick: If I may, and I know how much this upsets the Chair --

The Chair: It doesn't; your points were very clear.

Mr Harnick: If we go a little further on in the paper, it does talk about some of the problems and the difficulty enforcing the regulations that now exist. I think that is covered, but it's covered later on in the paper.

Mr Chiarelli: If we can find the reference where it's covered, I'll agree to delete my suggestion from this area.

Mr Harnick: Andrew, where is that?

Mr Andrew McNaught: I think what you're referring to is discussion of the problems in dealing with importation and interprovincial transportation of ammunition.

The Chair: Page 8, "Regulating Ammunition Purchased Outside the Province." Is that where it would be?

Mr McNaught: That's my recollection.

The Chair: Mr Winninger, you wanted to comment on Mr Harnick's remarks.

Mr Winninger: I support what Mr Harnick said around trying to rely on empirical evidence presented before this committee. I had heard Mr Chiarelli refer to anecdotal evidence, which I think helped inspire this legislation he brought forward, that there may be dealers in Ottawa who deal routinely, or infrequently, with people under the age of 16. Whether they're careless or reckless or intentional, we don't know. But this committee really didn't hear that kind of evidence. I wasn't here when you led your question, but it seems to me we'd need a little more to go on in that regard. I don't know that it really detracts from this report not to refer to it.

Mr Chiarelli: You're right. I drop my suggestion.

The Chair: Very well. Moving along, page 3, Mr Mills.

Mr Mills: It's in the first full paragraph on page 3. "In this regard, the committee focused particular attention on a private member's bill currently before the House, namely, Bill 151, An Act to control the Purchase and Sale of Ammunition." Mr Chairman, I submit to you that reference to this bill should not be included in this committee report. The bill was not submitted to this committee and it's not in its terms of reference. It's slated to be discussed by this committee at a later date, so therefore no reference to this should be made at all.

The Chair: Just as a matter of information, we had agreed as a committee to pass Bill 151 on to the constitutional lawyers. And others as well? All deputants or the constitutional lawyers?

Clerk of the Committee: The constitutional lawyers in particular and anyone else who is interested.

The Chair: So a number of people made reference to that based on the general agreement to do that.

Mr Chiarelli: In view of the comment we just had, we can't suck and blow at the same time. There are witnesses who came here, including Mrs de Villiers and a number of others, who basically referred to Bill 151 as a way of the province showing leadership to the federal government etc. The police witnesses who came before us referred to Bill 151 in various aspects etc. If we're going to say on the one hand that we've got to rely on what the witnesses were talking about, if they spoke about Bill 151, I think it's appropriate to make reference to it. We can't have it both ways.

Mr Mills: Yes. I'm just trying to make the point that the bill was not submitted to this committee for examination. We're not doing that.

The Chair: "In this regard the committee focused particular attention on a private member's bill currently before the House."

Mr Chiarelli: We could change that to indicate, "In this regard, notwithstanding the fact that Bill 151 was not part of the motion of reference" -- or the reference motion -- "the committee and/or various witnesses focused attention on private member's Bill 151" blah, blah, blah. That's probably closer to reality. I have no problem putting it in that way, if that addresses your concern. But the fact is, that was coming out of the lips of all the witnesses.

Mr Winninger: Rather than deal with it in such a roundabout way, why can't we say, "In this regard, witnesses were invited to comment on a private member's bill," rather than saying we "focused particular attention"? That more accurately reflects what was done.

Mr Chiarelli: That's fine.

1720

Mr Harnick: So there's no misunderstanding, why don't we just say that and, in addition, that that private member's bill "will be the subject of deliberations at this committee at a later date" in terms of the clause-by-clause aspect of it?

The Chair: Mr Harnick, you said, "In this regard, witnesses were invited to comment on a private member's bill currently before the committee," which means it's in this committee currently before us.

Mr Harnick: Well, no. "Currently" means right now.

The Chair: "Presently"?

Mr Harnick: "Currently awaiting deliberations before the justice committee." Is that acceptable?

The Chair: Sure, because we're in fact dealing with that next month or so. Is that all right? Very well.

Mr Mills: Mr Chairman, the next comment I have to make is under the title "Constitutional Issues" on page 3. You go down to the second paragraph and it says, "The committee therefore... from two constitutional law experts." I'd like to make the point that both of these professors agreed that there would be a constitutional challenge to such an act. Professor Swinton did mention cases where a law has been successfully challenged when it moves into federal territory such as gun control.

I'd like to add that we have before us the concern of the Toronto crown attorney, Calvin Barry, over the constitutionality of an act to control the sale of ammunition, and I don't see that mentioned under "Constitutional Issues." I would suggest that Crown Attorney Calvin Barry's concern over constitutionality be included in that paragraph.

Mr Chiarelli: I think the comments that were made on challenging the constitutionality were made in the context of the fact that just about any bill you're dealing with, particularly in the criminal area, is going to be looked at from a constitutional point of view, from a Charter of Rights point of view. I think the weight of evidence given by the two constitutional experts, who were independently, objectively chosen by the clerk, not by any of the parties, indicated that yes, it is an area where the provincial government can legislate, particularly if you restrict it to within the province, obviously.

It's completely understandable that any constitutional expert, on just about any issue, will tell you there's a risk of constitutionality being challenged in the courts. As any criminal lawyer or defence lawyer will tell you, one of the first things you look at is the constitutionality; you try to find anything to hang your hat on from a constitutional or charter point of view. Legitimately, any lawyer defending someone in a charge coming out of a provincial bill on the purchase and sale of ammunition would almost on a knee-jerk reaction say, "Let's challenge the constitutionality." I think it's in that light that both constitutional experts were saying it may be challenged. But they also said quite clearly, "If you stay within the four corners of the provincial jurisdiction, the chances of those challenges being successful would be very greatly diminished."

Mr Winninger: I don't know if I need to reiterate my earlier point, but for a fair and balanced report, on what we heard from Katherine Swinton, for one, we need to incorporate into the discussion there some of the negative things she said about the province acting on ammunition control. I had a quote I cited earlier which I can give to the researcher, although he probably already has it, that gun control has always been a federal issue; that the provincial government is arguably trying to make gun control work better by working on the ammunition side while the federal government is working on the gun side. If this is seen as a further restriction on the use of firearms, there may be even more weight to a constitutional challenge.

I think all the caveats that were built into Ms Swinton's address should be reflected in the discussion. I know she mentioned at a couple of points -- I don't have the paper here but I re-read it last night -- that we're open to a constitutional challenge here. She couched her recommendations in that language and I think it needs to reflect a little more some of the caveats she cited.

Mr Chiarelli: Can I suggest that rather than putting in quotes from witnesses etc, we might simply want to consider, "One of the constitutional experts, Professor Swinton, indicated that careful drafting of the provincial bill would be necessary in order to help minimize any constitutional law challenges." I think that's the substance of what she was saying.

Mr Winninger: That's fair comment, careful drafting, but also consideration of what lies within provincial jurisdiction in a substantive sense. It's drafting and substance.

The Chair: So you're saying, paraphrase what she might have said as opposed to actually quoting it.

Mr Chiarelli: We're basically saying that there are possible areas of constitutional challenge and these can be minimized by the provincial government staying clearly within the area of jurisdiction which they outline the province has.

The Chair: Before we go to Mr Harnick, is that all right?

Mr Mills: I just wonder where the crown attorney fits into this. We're leaving him out and I think his testimony was quite strong and quite powerful. He said unequivocally that the ammunition control lies in the federal government's hands. He made that statement. I have it here. He says the most effective way to deal with this is with the federal government, no ifs or buts, and that reference is not in this report. There's no mention of that gentleman.

Mr Harnick: Mr Mills is quite correct, but I don't think the crown attorney's remarks were in the area dealing with the constitutionality of the government legislating ammunition control. I agree with Mr Mills that that should be in here probably in a more forceful way than the first draft indicates.

But I agree with Mr Winninger that it's very difficult to be unequivocal about a constitutional position in absolute terms. I think that's what you were saying, and I think the things Mr Winninger has pointed out should probably be in this section.

In addition, the final paragraph that states, "Based on the legal advice outlined above, it is the view of the committee that the province has jurisdiction to enact legislation regulating the purchase and sale of ammunition within the province," I believe is somewhat too absolute. I think it should be recognized that "In all likelihood, based on the opinions we have, the province has jurisdiction," but I don't think I'd like to say it in absolute terms. I'd say that "in all likelihood" they have that jurisdiction, but I don't think anybody really knows until it's litigated. I wouldn't like to give the impression to the public reading this document that that's an absolute certainty.

1730

Mr Chiarelli: I have no problem with putting something in one of the paragraphs on the bottom of page 3 or the top of page 4 indicating the type of caveat or caution that Professor Swinton raised, particularly the advice that you've got to be fairly specific. I'm happy to leave that sort of caveat up to the researcher to draft a sentence to insert somewhere in that context.

I also have no problem with Mr Harnick's suggestion to add the words "in all likelihood." I guess we should say, "Based on the legal advice outlined above, it is the view of the committee that the province, in all likelihood, has jurisdiction to enact legislation." It probably should be inserted there. I have no problem with that.

The Chair: Did you want to comment, Andrew?

Mr McNaught: My interpretation of Professors Swinton and Hogg seems to be a little different from what others have heard. I think the so-called negative things Professor Swinton mentioned were raised in the context of a hypothetical argument against what she was advising the committee. I'd just note that Professor Hogg read Professor Swinton's paper prior to his presentation to the committee and he says, quoting from Hansard, "I want to say that I completely agree with her views" as expressed in those notes. He goes on to say: "I have no serious doubt that it would be. It seems to me that the province does have the power to control the sale and purchase of a dangerous product like ammunition. The power to do that comes from the province's power over property and civil rights in the province."

Professor Hogg very clearly interpreted Professor Swinton's opinion as saying that the province had jurisdiction in this area. That's why my statement was maybe a little more absolute.

Mr Winninger: But you agree that there are some caveats in Professor Swinton's --

Mr McNaught: As I was saying earlier, I think Professor Swinton raised those in the context of a hypothetical argument against what she was saying to the committee. But you might want to read Hansard.

Mr Winninger: At least two of the members and possibly more feel it could be couched in language a little more conditional than absolute.

Mr McNaught: I was simply explaining why I wrote it the way I did.

Mr Mills: I'd like to comment about the ability to regulate the flow of ammunition from the other provinces. I think it's fair to say that both professors felt strongly that the province would not be able to regulate the flow of ammunition from other provinces. Reading this report, I would like to see that put a little bit stronger, that we cannot, in our opinion, regulate this flow from the other provinces. It says "less likely." Just couch that in stronger terms, that position taken by those professors.

The Chair: Are we on page 4, referring to paragraph 2?

Mr Mills: Yes, I'm down to "a provincial law purporting to regulate the importation of ammunition from another province or country would be less likely to withstand a constitutional challenge." The professors said, and they said it very strongly, that the province would not be able to regulate the flow of ammunition, so we're saying their position should be couched in stronger terms.

The Chair: We'll get some comment from the others in a second. Is there a sense of agreement about the cautionary remarks people were making earlier on, including the language Mr Harnick was proposing, the "in all likelihood" language? Was that all right?

Mr Winninger: Just some reference to the caveats or cautions. We're not throwing the whole thing into doubt.

The Chair: That's fine. Now Mr Mills raises another point about the language. He wants to make it stronger.

Mr Mills: Stronger. The professor said this is going to be tough, and I'm saying that should be pronounced.

Mr Chiarelli: As a suggestion to the researcher in drafting, perhaps we cannot touch anything in that area till we get to the final paragraph, where it says, "Based on the legal advice outlined above, it is the view of the committee that the province has jurisdiction to enact legislation regulating the purchase and sale of ammunition within the province," and then we could add "but that the legislation would be subject to the usual type of constitutional challenges." In any criminal law that's enacted, you have constitutional challenges, charter arguments etc. Again, I think what Professor Swinton was saying is that you can expect to have that type of normal constitutional challenge.

The Chair: Mr Chiarelli's saying that based on the final paragraph, he wouldn't recommend changes to the second paragraph. Other comments on that?

Mr Winninger: What paragraph are we on now, the second paragraph?

The Chair: Mr Mills was saying that the language in the second paragraph on page 4 should be stronger, that what is there isn't strong enough. Mr Chiarelli was saying we should leave the second paragraph, and the third paragraph takes care of it.

Mr Chiarelli: Just leave everything as it is, but where it says, "Based on the legal advice outlined above, it is the view of the committee that the province has jurisdiction to enact legislation regulating the purchase and sale of ammunition within the province," just add the phrase "although the normal type of constitutional challenges could be expected."

Mr Winninger: My only point as to which paragraph we were on is that Mr Mills's concern was about paragraph 8, but the last part of paragraph 9 actually makes the point Mr Mills was making, that, "A strong argument could be made that such a law fell within the federal government's power." Isn't it already there, is what I'm saying.

Mr Chiarelli: It's very important to understand what the nature of this caution is on the page 4, the second paragraph. What Professor Swinton and Professor Hogg are saying is that if Bill 151, or any other law the province drafts, mentions the importation of ammunition, you're basically going to make it much more subject to a challenge. All we have to do to make it less subject to a challenge is say we're controlling the purchase and sale within the province, and then it's not going to be subject to a strong challenge. If we try to say that nobody in Ontario can import ammunition, we're going to be caught and it's going to be ruled out of order constitutionally, so we have to be very specific and deal with the purchase and sale of ammunition within the province.

Ms Akande: I have a question. In that very paragraph it says, "Based on the legal advice outlined above, it is the view of the committee..." and yet we have all been very careful at the initiation of this exercise to say that this is going forth not necessarily as the agreed-upon view of the committee that the province has jurisdiction to enact legislation. We're still discussing that. That's what this whole thing is about. This implies more agreement and assent.

Mr Chiarelli: We're trying to bring the discussion to an end by agreeing, what is the committee's view on the constitutionality? That's what we're discussing.

Ms Akande: But as it's stated here, it doesn't seem that's part of a discussion. It really does imply that we have reached that agreement.

Mr Chiarelli: We're trying to reach the agreement.

Ms Akande: I knew that.

1740

Mr Harnick: I think you're really making a lot of nothing. On page 3, "Both Professor Swinton and Professor Hogg concluded that a provincial law, such as Bill 151, aimed at the control of the purchase and sale of ammunition within the province would be constitutionally valid." Then the next full paragraph is that these professors "also suggested that a provincial law purporting to regulate the importation of ammunition from another province or country would be less likely to withstand a constitutional challenge." Then the final paragraph says, "Based on the legal advice outlined above, it is the view of the committee that the province has jurisdiction to enact legislation regulating the purchase and sale of ammunition" -- the key words being -- "within the province."

All I'm saying, and I thought we had this agreed to, is that we were going to add, at Mr Winninger's request, the aspect of Professor Swinton where it seemed there could be an argument to be mounted against this, and we would then say, "Based on the legal advice outlined above, it is the view of the committee that in all likelihood the province does have jurisdiction to enact."

The whole essence of what we're saying here is that you can't be absolutely certain and that we shouldn't be conveying to people who read this absolute certainty in terms of the constitutional position. You might have some student come over from some high school or university to do a research paper on this and go back to school and say, "Those people in that committee said this was an absolute certainty, and if you can't believe your legislators, who can you believe?" I don't think we want to convey that impression.

Mr Winninger: I'd feel more comfortable if we changed that second line of the paragraph we're looking at now to read that the province "may have" jurisdiction to enact legislation. Mr Harnick's words were "in all likelihood." Mr Chiarelli's words were "does have jurisdiction." I like "may have."

Mr Harnick: I don't have a problem.

Mr Winninger: We are expressing a view. My preference would be to say "may have jurisdiction." That's not to say we don't. That's not to say that all doubt has been removed that we do. It's simply to say we "may have" jurisdiction, that there may be a basis.

Mr Chiarelli: That makes it too wishy-washy and it doesn't reflect the advice we got. It was very clear that they said, reading between the lines, "in all likelihood," and I would prefer to accept those words. "May" is really watered down, that it could just be an outside possibility. In fact, the weight of their evidence is that it's "in all likelihood" constitutional, not "may," I think a proper reading of their advice to this committee.

Mr Winninger: Did they use the words "in all likelihood"?

The Chair: As a neutral Chair, we had two constitutional lawyers who said this, and would we not as a committee, based on the legal advice, therefore say that "the province has jurisdiction," which is what they said?

Mr Winninger: Could I ask Andrew to remind us of the words they used in their bottom line?

Mr McNaught: I quote Professor Hogg: "I directed my attention to the question of whether the Act to control the Purchase and Sale of Ammunition would be a valid provincial enactment, and I have no serious doubt that it would be. It seems to me that the province does have the power to control the sale and purchase of a dangerous product like ammunition."

Mr Winninger: Did Katherine Swinton use similar language?

Mr McNaught: She didn't use that definite language.

Mr Chiarelli: "No serious doubt."

Mr McNaught: He has no serious doubt, is the essence of his opinion.

The Chair: "I have no serious doubt that it would be," he says.

Mr Harnick: Why don't you put "in all likelihood"? Then at least it's not absolute.

Mr Winninger: Gord, are you okay with "in all likelihood"?

Mr Mills: I'm a reasonable person.

Mr Harnick: That's what we always say about you.

The Chair: Okay, "in all likelihood." Very good.

Mr Mills: Where are we going now? Are we moving right along?

The Chair: I think we can. Is that all right?

Mr Mills: I want to comment on page 5 when we get to that.

The Chair: Let's just see whether there's anything else on page 4. The other one would read, as had been recommended by Mr Harnick, "Based on the legal advice outlined above, it is the view of the committee that in all likelihood the province has...." Anything else there?

Mr Winninger: Do we need to deal with Bill 151 in here in such an extensive fashion and list all the amendments? Is this something we need to do in this report?

Mr Chiarelli: Can I make a suggestion here? I would suggest leaving the reference to Bill 151 in so that it would read, "Bill 151 would restrict the sale of ammunition to persons holding" etc. "Under the bill, it would be an offence to purchase or sell ammunition if these conditions were not met."

I would say in the next sentence, "Set out below is a summary of the recommendations received by the committee to amend Bill 151, and for ammunition control legislation generally," and I would like to see some additional reference there which would indicate the committee's recommendation that these should also be considered in any other provincial bill which might be introduced by the government to deal with it. It's a reality that if my private member's bill isn't dealt with, it may be that the government will bring in a bill, and I want a statement in here that says the advice we received from the witnesses should be applicable to Bill 151 or any other provincial bill which might be introduced.

Mr Winninger: Except that they didn't have any other provincial bill before them.

Mr Chiarelli: I agree, but the general principles of their advice. There were some general principles; for example, photographs on cards and exemptions for hunters or farmers etc. Those are all recommendations that were made that should be taken into account by a draftsperson of a provincial bill. I would like to see us create some wording that could incorporate them to the extent that they might be applicable to a government or other bill provincially. I want it to be more general advice than just to Bill 151.

The Chair: So Mr Chiarelli's saying leave it and add.

Mr Harnick: It seems to me that you can get around all of this by just saying, "An ammunition control bill would restrict the sale of ammunition" etc, and then, "Set out below is a summary of the recommendations received by the committee for inclusion in an ammunition control bill." Then you just set it out. That basically recites what's in Mr Chiarelli's bill without specifically mentioning Bill 151, so if the government decides it would like to legislate, these would be all the components we would expect to see in a bill. You don't have to deal with Bill 151; you can just say this is what should be in it.

Mr Chiarelli: I would like to make a reference to Bill 151, but a qualified reference, in that earlier we had indicated that: "the attention of a number of witnesses was addressed towards Bill 151. Notwithstanding that, a number of recommendations should be considered with respect to any provincial legislation dealing with this issue." If we don't make a reference to Bill 151, in effect some of the comments of the witnesses would be taken out of context. I would like to put in some contextual reference to 151 but then try to generalize it more towards provincial legislation generally. I don't know if that makes sense to anybody, but I think it would put it in context a bit.

I don't care whether my name is associated with it. I don't particularly care whether Bill 151 is referenced in the report, other than I think it would be a more honest representation of what the witnesses were saying to have a reference to Bill 151 in some way, because that's what they were commenting on in large part.

Mr Harnick: Then why don't you just say, "Using Bill 151 as a guideline" --

Mr Winninger: Or "as an example."

Mr Chiarelli: Exactly. That's in fact what happened with the witnesses.

Mr Harnick: Or, "Using Bill 151 as a reference point, witnesses said that an ammunition bill should include restriction for the sale of ammunition to persons holding a valid Ontario Outdoors Card" etc, and then go on: It should include a definition of "ammunition," and then just go through each of the items. Is that a satisfactory way to deal with the next draft?

Mr Chiarelli: It is to me.

1750

Mr Mills: Are we going to move on now?

The Chair: They're proposing some suggestions of how to deal with reference to Bill 151, and I'm just getting a sense to see whether you agree.

Mr Winninger: I do agree, and I can see from reading through these various recommendations that you can't deal with them in a vacuum. Since Bill 151 was the reference point, to use Mr Harnick's words, to focus their attention on these issues, we need to, but I don't see the need to change a lot of what's here from page 4 to page 10, just that perhaps we don't need to keep referring to Bill 151 once we've said it's the reference point at the beginning, unless you absolutely have to.

The Chair: Okay, that takes care of it, at least on page 4. Page 5?

Mr Mills: We're talking about the ammunition permits, and I just want to talk to Bob about this briefly. We had a lot of objections from the Ontario Handgun Association and the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters, but in addition to that, our ministry has been inundated with complaints and calls from people engaged in agriculture and the like -- they don't belong to any of these organizations -- about how they deal with the vermin and other animals, predators, that come on their property that they need to dispose of. This is a real serious concern to those folks. I'm just wondering how you feel about that.

Mr Chiarelli: My position is that Bill 151 was approved in principle and that if the justice committee gets to deal with Bill 151 or a similar type of bill, all those concerns should be addressed and hopefully we will consider amendments. I'm sympathetic to accommodating the concerns of the anglers and hunters about the expense of the certificates mentioned in Bill 151, about the concerns of farmers, and I would like to see some accommodation so that the regulations or sections of the bill would address their concerns. I am more than willing to look at reasonable amendments to accommodate those concerns.

Mr Mills: That's good.

The Chair: Further discussion? Is there agreement? Are there any changes being proposed here?

Mr Mills: I just wonder if we should include some of your feelings, Bob, in this report, so that it's in there that we say we would visit these areas of concerns of the anglers and hunters, of the farmers etc. Rather than say, "Yes, we will," should it be mentioned in the report?

Mr Chiarelli: I'm happy to have the mention, but given the nature of the process, I'm not sure it's appropriate. If you want me to give witness as the person who introduced the bill, I will say on the record as the person who introduced the bill that I would be supportive of having some indication in the report that the committee, when and if it deals with Bill 151, take into account in a serious way all the amendments which have been proposed by people who came before the committee, take into account the concerns of the Ontario Federation of Agriculture; and that we take as a starting point simply the principle that the province should, within the province of Ontario, pass legislation to regulate the purchase and sale of ammunition, with particular reference to enforcement of age restrictions. That's basically the reference point or the starting point from my perspective.

The Chair: Mr Mills, is that what you would like referenced in the report?

Mr Mills: It's a little more than I wanted, but we'll go along with that.

The Chair: Some summary of that statement?

Mr Mills: Yes, some summary of that.

The Chair: All right, page 6.

Mr Mills: I have a comment to make, down at the bottom where it says "ammunition registry." We had the chief provincial firearms officer appear, and he says a number of things. In the report it says: "As the office of the CPFO does not have enough staff," and I would like to mention that he would need additional staff. Maybe it's just your interpretation of the way the language flows, but I would like to see that he said he said he needs additional staff, rather than to say he hasn't enough staff.

The Chair: The witness may have said this. Is that correct, Mr Mcnaught? Do we know?

Mr McNaught: I don't remember the exact wording, I'm afraid.

The Chair: Do you want us to check the record to see what he said?

Mr Mills: If he did say he requires additional staff, that's fine. But I think that's a little different from saying, "I haven't got enough staff to do this." My argument is that you can always do with more people to do anything, but when you haven't got enough you can't do anything. It's, "We need more and we'd like to have more to do this," as opposed to saying, "We haven't got enough, so we can't do it."

Mr Chiarelli: I think we're splitting hairs, in a sense. I don't think the province has enough staff to conduct inspections in any area, whether it's elevators or so on and so forth. I have raised the question of elevator inspections off and on.

I think what he's saying is that he may have to set up a system of random inspections or he may have a system of inspecting in areas where complaints come in, but that there will have to be a policy of inspection that will not be 100% inspection. With a lawyer's trust account, for example, the law society will go in and do periodic audits of a lawyer's trust account. If there's going to be a registry kept, if that's in the legislation, I'm saying there will be periodic audits of the registries of vendors of ammunition.

Nobody is suggesting in the legislation that the officer is going to have to inspect on an annual basis every single one who sells ammunition in the province. I don't think that is being suggested at all, and I don't think it's appropriate to expect everyone to be inspected. You may require reports to be filed. They may be inspected or audited on some sort of scientific basis, but not all of them.

Mr Mills: I would like us to check the Hansard. It's my belief that the gentleman did say, "I would require additional staff." He didn't say, "I don't think I have enough staff." That's the point I want to make and I don't want to leave that out.

The Chiarelli: Maybe we could change the wording to indicate that "The CPFO indicated that resources for inspections is a problem that would have to be addressed."

Mr Mills: No. I'm not going to say it's a problem.

The Chiarelli: "Is an area that would have to be addressed."

Mr Mills: "The CPFO said he may require additional staff to conduct the inspections of all ammunition retailers in the province."

The Chair: Andrew, will you check that? Anything else on that page?

Mr Mills: I think it's 6 o'clock.

The Chair: Given that it is 6 o'clock, we still have a number of things. We have tomorrow to finish this report. I'm assuming we'll have plenty of time, if we start on time, to go through these things. If not, we'll have to discuss how to deal with that. I'm not sure whether we want to do that now or do that tomorrow.

Mr Chiarelli: I just wanted to leave a thought with the committee members, and it's the same thought I mentioned at the start of our deliberations today. We're very close to coming to possible recommendation number 1 and possible recommendation number 2. I see nothing inconsistent with us merging those two recommendations and indicating a provincial preference for the federal government to get involved in a meaningful way, but that we're going to proceed with legislation in the absence of the federal government; that hopefully the province, by showing this leadership, will show leadership to the other provinces and the federal government to do it in a much more meaningful way, but that this is a small area where the province can get involved and show leadership in the vacuum type of situation.

That's the area I suggest I will be going into tomorrow. Maybe Charles and David and the other members can consider that alternative between now and tomorrow.

The Chair: I'm assuming we'll have plenty of time to deal with this report tomorrow. If within an hour of beginning we get a sense that we're having some difficulties, we'll discuss how to proceed, okay?

Mr Harnick: Have we gotten to the point of having a subcommittee meeting, in that we've now received a bill from the Legislature that we will be dealing with in this committee, in priority to the matters that were decided at the last subcommittee meeting?

The Chair: I'll arrange for that, Mr Harnick. This committee is adjourned until tomorrow.

The committee adjourned at 1802.