SUBCOMMITTEE REPORT

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

CONTENTS

Wednesday 22 June 1994

Subcommittee report

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:

Runciman, Robert W. (Leeds-Grenville PC) Mr Harnick

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 1732 in room 228.

SUBCOMMITTEE REPORT

The Chair (Mr Rosario Marchese): Before we get on to our regular business, can we have the subcommittee report by Ms Harrington?

Ms Margaret H. Harrington (Niagara Falls): Earlier today we held a subcommittee meeting and the three parties agreed to committee hearings on Bill 163, the planning reform act. The dates of travel for the committee would be August 29 through to September 15. That would be three weeks of travelling, one week to the north, one to the west and one to the east, followed by a break of one week, at which time, as this is a major bill, each party would be able to get its research and amendments done, and then clause-by-clause during the week of September 26 through 29. This committee will advertise the hearings across the province, and normally we will have half-hour slots for each of the presenters.

That's a rough outline of what has been agreed upon, further details to be done by the clerk and the subcommittee.

The Chair: So Ms Harrington moves that. All in favour of the subcommittee report? That carries.

Mr David Winninger (London South): I have an ancillary motion, that for the purpose of committee business over the summer recess, the Chair, in consultation with the subcommittee, and in the case of private members' bills in consultation with the sponsor of the bill, shall have the authority to make all arrangements necessary for the orderly consideration of all matters referred to the committee.

The Chair: I suspect for the most part we will be dealing with the bill for the four weeks we will have, starting in August some time; that so much of our time will be taken by that, we may not even get to this. However, any discussion? Seeing none, all in favour of the motion? Opposed? That carries.

Mr Robert W. Runciman (Leeds-Grenville): Dealing with the committee travel, just an inquiry: How much has the committee budgeted for advertising for its public hearings process?

The Chair: We have not used much money so far for much of our committee work, so we have plenty. But you want to know specifically how much that might cost, to do all this travelling?

Mr Runciman: I was at the resources development committee this afternoon. They're doing the workers' compensation bill, and they were indicating that they're going to advertise in every daily newspaper across Ontario. Is that the intent of this committee as well, to advertise its hearings in every daily newspaper?

Clerk of the Committee (Ms Donna Bryce): Just to clarify the committee budget, the process has changed since previous years. Right now there's a global committee budget for all committees, and we'll draw on that budget for the travel as necessary.

For advertisement, we use a consulting firm that sets up the advertisements in the appropriate communities, the ones which will be affected. I would say that the average cost of ads may be in the order of $20,000.

Mr Runciman: I just wanted to make this point; I made it at the previous committee. I don't sit on these committees, but something that the Chairs of the committees perhaps should be looking at in terms of a recommendation to the Board of Internal Economy is that we have four committees going out this summer, all of them advertising; why couldn't they all advertise in one ad and perhaps significantly reduce the advertising costs?

I'm a little cheesed off. I had the Ministry of Transportation close a vehicle licensing office in a rural community in my riding for a supposed saving of $10,000, yet I see this kind of expenditure occurring and there's obviously an opportunity here for real savings.

The Chair: I understand the point you raised and we'll follow up on that. Was there agreement in the subcommittee to do this by all three members of the different parties?

Ms Harrington: There was agreement to advertise. We did not discuss whether it would be weekly papers or major papers or any of those details.

The Chair: Perhaps we can discuss that again. We'll undertake to do that.

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

The Chair: Ready to begin on the draft report? Anything on page 7, or did we finish that off?

Mr Robert Chiarelli (Ottawa West): I thought we had agreed on the text up to the recommendations.

Mr Gordon Mills (Durham East): I have a minor thing on page 8. It's the same wording I had difficulty with yesterday, that "the CPFO does not have sufficient staff." I think we were going to look into that to say he "would require additional staff," just that difference. I don't know if it was researched to find out exactly what he said yet.

The Chair: We have it and we'll read it out.

Mr Andrew McNaught: This is Mr Vanwyk speaking. "At the present time my office does not have the staff to inspect ammunition dealers alone; we only have time to deal with the firearms and ammunition dealers."

The Chair: He said "does not have the staff." Mr Mills, do you want to take out the word "sufficient" to say "the"?

Mr Mills: Yes.

Mr Runciman: Could I have some clarification about what we're dealing with? "Does not have sufficient staff," and Mr Mills is suggesting what?

Mr Mills: "Does not have the staff."

The Chair: The Hansard we were reading from the individual who gave testimony said, "the office of the CPFO does not have the staff," as opposed to "sufficient." Mr Mills is agreeing to delete "sufficient" and put in "the."

Mr Runciman: Why should we delete that?

The Chair: We were trying to put it in the language of the testimony given, I guess.

Mr Runciman: If you want to put in the testimony delivered, he doesn't even have enough staff to do the job he's currently authorized to do in respect of firearms dealers. There are 1,200 dealers in this province and he has 10 staff to try to tour the province and they're supposed to do annual inspections, and they don't even come close to touching on visiting each of those 1,200 dealers. That was the testimony we heard. If you want to be accurate, perhaps we should even touch on that.

1740

The Chair: Any further discussion on that page?

Mr Runciman: I'm happy with it the way it is.

Mr Mills: I don't want to turn what I perceive to be a minor discrepancy into a major issue, because we've only got 20 minutes to be here.

The Chair: So we'll leave it?

Mr Mills: Leave it if it's a problem. Forget it.

The Chair: Very well. Anything further on that page?

Mr Chiarelli: I have a motion to make.

The Chair: We're on page 9, moving into possible recommendations. You want to move something on the whole report?

Mr Chiarelli: Yes. I move that the committee adopt the draft report:

(a) incorporating the changes made on June 21 as agreed to by all parties;

(b) that possible recommendation 1 be deleted;

(c) that recommendation 2 be adopted by changing the second recommendation to read "that the requirement of a photo identification would be preferable to a requirement that purchasers of ammunition show a valid Outdoors Card with the appropriate hunting licence or a valid firearms acquisition certificate";

(d) that the provisions of the report dealing with community-based crime prevention initiatives are acknowledged and received.

It is my understanding that the Solicitor General has a draft government bill he is prepared to introduce tomorrow incorporating the recommendations of this report as suggested in my motion. It is my understanding that the substance of the bill is that there be an age requirement of 18, that there be a requirement for a photo identification rather than the Ontario Outdoors Card or a firearms acquisition certification which was in Bill 151, and that there will be maintained a registry by all vendors or dealers in ammunition, the latter being added to the concept of Bill 151 on the strong recommendations of law enforcement officials and police witnesses who came before the committee.

It is my understanding that the Solicitor General intends to initiate changes to regulations which would make these changes effective as early as a month from now and that the actual bill itself is necessary to impose offences and penalties. It is my understanding that the Solicitor General is attempting to receive unanimous consent for tomorrow so that his bill would be given first, second and third reading.

I would say for the record that I personally and my caucus support the government's initiatives and will give unanimous consent tomorrow. I cannot speak on behalf of the Conservative Party.

Mr Runciman: No kidding.

Mr Mills: It's been plain from the outset of these discussions that, although I sought some changes in words to recognize some of the things the government has been doing, the weapons registry, the amnesty program, I recognize that we're not here to make political points out of this, that we're here to serve the people of Ontario in a very delicate and a timely manner with this problem.

I'd like to take this opportunity, and it may be the first time in his life, to thank Mr Chiarelli for his contribution to this committee and his introduction of these amendments, which our government will support. Thank you very much.

The Chair: You're supporting the amendments, in other words?

Mr Mills: Yes.

Ms Harrington: Briefly, I agree with the direction Mr Chiarelli has indicated in this motion. The only request to the committee I have is a fairly minor one. On page 14, where it discusses the initiatives for community-based crime prevention, I would like to add another bullet point, and I will leave the wording with the clerk. It reads as follows:

"Planning Together process -- That the Ontario Housing Corp initiatives to empower tenants through the Planning Together process be encouraged to continue. This process strengthens individuals' respect for their communities through involvement in decision-making and addresses community safety and security issues, as well as discrimination and harassment issues in Ontario Housing Corp."

Unfortunately, I do have to leave to go chair in the Legislature, so I'd leave this wording with you and ask you to consider that.

The Chair: If there's agreement, there won't be any problem. Is there agreement with that? Very well.

Mr Chris Hodgson (Victoria-Haliburton): I want to thank you for letting me sit in as a guest. Mr Chiarelli referred to tomorrow's legislation that's coming up. When will that be in a final form that we can have a look at? Does anybody know?

Mr Chiarelli: Just after the vote in the House, I spoke with the Solicitor General. He indicated to me that he understands fully that some parties may be reluctant to give 100% concurrence with the legislation until they see it. He undertook to have the draft legislation to us some time this evening and said he would be available to discuss it this evening with anybody who wants to talk to him. So presumably within the next couple of hours we'll have the details of the legislation.

Mr Hodgson: Mr Chiarelli, if it's similar in content to this private member's bill, can you give me a practical example of how it will work? For instance, if a person owns a farm and has a .22 or a shotgun, but they no longer need an FAC to buy another weapon so they don't have a current FAC, will they be able to go in and buy shells for their shotguns?

Mr Chiarelli: If they have a driver's licence with a photograph on it -- they're obviously 18 years of age -- they can go in and purchase the ammunition over the counter. The vendor of the ammunition will be required to record in a designated registry the name and address of the particular individual. That registry requirement is in the legislation at the request of police enforcement officers, because they thought it would be extremely helpful in investigations of crimes involving guns. Where they have the bullet, they will forensically be able to trace the point of sale if it was purchased legally.

Mr Hodgson: Thank you very much. I can't vote, but I appreciate that.

Mr Winninger: I think we need to be a little clearer. In terms of the phrase Mr Chiarelli used, "designated registry," he knows and I know that we're talking about the dealer of ammunition keeping records of whom the dealer sells to, presumably on what day and so on. There's not going to be some central registry where all these dealings are going to be recorded. We need to clarify that. "Designated registry" suggests something far more elaborate and formal than what's going to be the actual fact.

The other thing is just clarification, and perhaps it goes without saying: All of our discussions yesterday around changes that we'd like to see in this draft report will be incorporated. Your motion deals strictly with the recommendations today.

Mr Chiarelli: That's correct. My motion basically says, adopt the draft report incorporating the changes made yesterday, deleting recommendation option 1 and accepting recommendation 2, with that change I've indicated, and item (d) is basically acknowledging and receiving the balance of the report after the recommendations, which deal with community-based crime prevention initiatives. The motion is intended to adopt a complete report, with those changes.

Mr Runciman: Can I get some clarification? In (c) you're saying "That recommendation 2 be adopted by changing the second recommendation to read..." What's the effect of this change, that you're removing the references to FAC?

Mr Chiarelli: Yes. Bill 151 is not technically before the committee on this particular motion. What we're recommending to the government is that the requirement of a photo identification is preferable to a requirement that purchasers of ammunition show a valid Ontario Outdoors Card with the appropriate hunting licence or a valid firearms acquisition certificate. It is my understanding that the draft legislation makes no reference to the Ontario Outdoors Card or the FAC and it is not a requirement; it's simply a requirement to have the photo ID. I believe that is in response to the association of hunters and anglers and in response to submissions made by the Ontario Federation of Agriculture and farm groups.

Mr Mills: Are we going to get the opportunity to see the report in its entirety before we sign off on this? I suppose there's an opportunity. When will the report be ready? When will we dispose of it?

The Chair: Most of the changes could be done or have been done. It could be ready for tomorrow for us to see before it gets presented in the House.

Mr Mills: I don't see any conflict in seeing the report before the minister introduces the legislation. Speaking for myself, I think the committee would like to see it before we actually sign it off. I don't see that as a holdup to the introduction of the bill.

The Chair: As individual members to see the report? We can arrange to do that before tomorrow.

Mr Chiarelli: Just on a technical point, if I may change the motion to "(a) incorporating the changes made on June 21 and June 22," to incorporate the minor addition that was just made, that will cover that.

The Chair: By Ms Harrington. Very well. Any further questions or points? Seeing none, all in favour of Mr Chiarelli's motion? Opposed? That carries.

If there is nothing further, I will go through the other matters with respect to this draft. Mr Chiarelli's motion already moved that the draft report be adopted, so that's the first part of this.

The second is: Shall I present the report to the House and move its adoption? Agreed.

Mr Winninger: Subject to circulating a copy of the final draft.

The Chair: Sure. We should be able to do that before 12 o'clock tomorrow.

Is there agreement that the French translation be tabled at a later date? Agreed.

Shall the committee request the government to table a comprehensive response to the report within 120 calendar days of it being reported to the House? Agreed.

Thank you very much. This committee is adjourned.

The committee adjourned at 1755.