EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Tuesday, April 25, 1995

.1134 [Image]

[English]

The Chair: Order.

.1135 [Image]

We're continuing our consideration of Bill C-68, an act respecting firearms and
other weapons. Today we are dealing with other weapons.

We have as our witnesses the Excalibur Crossbow Inc. company. We have its
president, William Troubridge, and his wife, Mrs. Troubridge.

Mr. Troubridge, I understand that part of your presentation will be by way of a
video. I would ask you to make any opening comments and then, following the
comment and the video, we will proceed with our questioning.

As the members know, there are provisions in Bill C-68 for crossbows, and
that's the reason for inviting our witnesses today.

Mr. William Troubridge (President, Excalibur Crossbow Inc.): I'd like to be
able to give a brief opening commentary and then, when the video's completed,
I'd like to cruise over some very important points.

The Chair: Very good.

Mr. Troubridge: The crossbow certainly has one of the worst public relations
problems of any mechanical apparatus. These misconceptions are constantly
supported by the movie and news industries, since exploiting public interest in
this primitive weapon is a profitable venture. Sadly, the victim of this
exploitation is an archaic weapon that was made obsolete before 1500 AD by the
most primitive matchlock firearms.

Perhaps the first thing to raise these concerns is the appearance of the
crossbow. It's important to realize that, contrary to public opinion, crossbows
are not just bows mounted on rifle stocks. They supersede guns by more than
2,000 years. In reality, guns are small cannons mounted on rifle stocks.

I will present information to the committee that will establish that, with the
exception of a very few highly publicized crimes, crossbows are rarely misused
by criminals, as well as the reason for this. I will also establish
relationships between various forms of archery equipment on the basis of
performance, recreational use, and potential for criminal misuse.

It is well documented that mistrust or fear of the unknown is one of our most
basic human characteristics. In order to overcome this and help you familiarize
yourselves with the crossbow, I would like to present a short video segment on
this subject that was edited from an instructional video on crossbow hunting.

.1140 [Image]

[Translation]

A member: [Inaudible]

The Chairman: No, because they tried to show us a video and, for some reason,
it doesn't work.

[English]

Mr. Troubridge: It appears that we cannot get the video to play right now. We
will provide copies to anyone who's interested. We have several extra copies.

Attempts to provide information regarding the criminal use of crossbows in
Canada have been continually thwarted by the same problem. Crime with crossbows
is so very rare that statistics are not kept. The Canadian Centre for Justice
Statistics states that until recently crossbows have been included into the
class of sharp instruments, which represents a huge percentage of armed crime.
Recently a more refined system of classification has been adopted, but
unfortunately only a few jurisdictions are presently on the new system. This
system classifies crossbows into the more specialized class of ``other piercing
and cutting instruments'', which includes other archery equipment, spears,
razor blades, broken beer bottles, etc. The conclusion here is that
crossbow-related crime is rare enough to be filed into an obscure class and
given no special status.

The video is now working.

.1145 [Image]

[Video Presentation]

Mr. Troubridge: I hope that gave everybody an opportunity to see exactly what a
crossbow is, because one of my concerns is that most people have never seen
what a crossbow is or what it does.

I'd like to point out that the system for cataloguing crime that is presently
being used in or introduced into the individual police departments classifies
crossbows as ``other piercing and cutting instruments''. This is a class that
includes other archery equipment, spears, razor blades, broken beer bottles,
etc. The conclusion here is that crossbow-related crime is rare enough to be
filed into an obscure class and given no special status.

Pistol crossbows have been banned as of January 1, 1995. However, I sincerely
question whether anyone ever tested them to assist in reaching this decision.
I've been unable to find any relationship between pistol crossbows and violent
crime, and due to the low power and poor accuracy of these bows, I doubt that
they could, in any case, figure prominently.

When contacted with regard to rates of compliance to the Order in Council, the
Metropolitan Toronto, Waterloo Regional, and Mount Forest OPP detachments
indicated that only three crossbows had been turned in for destruction.
Considering that the maximum sentence for non-compliance is ten years and that
more than 800 of these small crossbows have been sold in Canada in the last
year alone, it can be surmised that the ban has been unsuccessful, and that a
new class of criminal has been created by it.

Perhaps a more effective path would have been to impose a minimum age
restriction for purchase of these bows. The only complaints of which I am aware
would be classified as mischief and almost invariably involve minors.

Concealability must be used as a criterion in assessment of a potential
offensive weapon. Pistol crossbows may be classed as moderately concealable.
However, it should be noted that any crossbow of a size that can provide a long
enough power stroke to be truly dangerous is invariably impossible to conceal.

Repeat firepower is also an important criterion with regard to offensive
status. Certainly on this criterion any crossbow will lose, since reloading
requires the shooter to have both the opportunity and space to bend down and
reset the string. This is a long and laborious process.

.1150 [Image]

One claim made by the federal government is that the crossbow has no legitimate
target-shooting purpose. In Canada, the crossbow currently represents a
no-man's land between the Federation of Canadian Archers and the Shooting
Federation of Canada. Although it's a traditional form of archery equipment,
for which international competition exists, the FCA does not include the
crossbow in its definition of archery, as do the United States, Australia and
New Zealand archery associations.

This situation is currently being dealt with. In a few months one or the other
of these organizations will be affiliated with the Internationale
Armbrustschutzen Union, for the purpose of encouraging international
competition with crossbow.

It should be noted that for more than a decade crossbow users have regularly
competed in Ontario and for six years the Canadian 3-D Archery Championship has
hosted a popular crossbow class. Also noteworthy is the fact that the Ontario
Archery Association now officially recognizes crossbows for their competitions.

Without doubt, the largest group of crossbow enthusiasts are the hunters, and
most of the crossbows sold are owned by them. Federal literature states that
seven out of twelve game agencies do not allow crossbows for hunting. It infers
that this represents a majority who do not see the crossbow as a legitimate
hunting tool.

In order to confirm this, we contacted every provincial and territorial game
department in order to establish their laws regarding crossbows, the numbers of
hunters using crossbows in their jurisdiction, and whether crossbows have
proven to be an asset or a liability to their hunting opportunities.

We now know that two of the provinces quoted as not allowing crossbows in fact
allow their use. We also know that more than three-quarters of Canada's hunters
have the opportunity to hunt using a crossbow and that no province or territory
allowing crossbows has seen any undue incidence of game violations with them.

The provinces that do not allow crossbows for hunting state that the main
reason for their decision was lack of requests to open a season. Notable were
comments from the Yukon, where an attempt to legalize crossbows was blocked by
an elitist bow-hunting group, and in British Columbia, where crossbow use is
occasionally subject to attack by their provincial bow-hunting organization.

It's also notable that Alberta has recognized the opportunities crossbows
supply to disabled persons. Crossbows provide access to this exciting sport,
and in 1994 Alberta legalized crossbows for use by handicapped bow-hunters in
appreciation of this fact.

In Canada, crossbows actually represent a very small amount of archery
equipment. The overwhelming majority of archers use compound or recurved hand
bows, which are more popular, both because of the abundance of competitive
opportunities and the extended hunting seasons afforded to them exclusively in
many provinces.

Numbers of crossbow hunters are easiest to speculate about in Ontario, where
crossbow hunting is very popular and there are estimated to be well over 60,000
hunters using bows. A 1991 study says that about 60% of these hunters, or
36,000, use crossbows. In Ontario, hunting regulations recognize equally these
two forms of archery. Their popularity and performance have been measured and
documented for hunting.

Studies in Ontario show that crossbow hunters are actually less successful than
those using conventional hand-held bows. This is not surprising, since compound
bows are quieter, shoot faster, and have a flatter trajectory and a faster rate
of fire than do crossbows.

A glance at a modern compound bow and the accessories available for it will
quickly reveal how this is possible. Compound systems reduce holding weight by
as much as 85% to assist in accurate aiming, and sophisticated scope sights can
be installed on compound bows. Trigger release aids are also commonly available
and used to enhance accuracy. Compared with archery equipment of25 years ago,
today's compound bows are relatively easy to shoot accurately and are
infinitely more powerful. The days when the crossbow was superior are long
gone.

If I may comment regarding Bill C-68, I note several concerns regarding long
crossbows. A crossbow is defined as having a barrel or groove to guide its
projectile. It's important to note that a significant portion of modern
crossbows do not use this method of guidance and therefore are outside of the
proposed definition.

.1155 [Image]

Although in this document a crossbow is not a firearm by definition, certainly
any background check provided in application for a firearm certificate should
be sufficient to ensure the competence of a prospective crossbow owner. To
allow use of this certification would be extremely cost-efficient, since an
overwhelming majority of crossbow owners also own firearms.

Acceptance of this certification should also extend to owners of minors'
firearms certificates. Without this consideration, youths in provinces where
crossbow hunting is popular would be excluded from participating until they
reached the age of eighteen, even if they had shown the responsibility and
initiative to attend and pass the firearms course.

In the end, we must consider whether the proposed changes deal with the
perception of the crossbow or with its realities. Considerable proof has been
presented to show that crossbows are, in actuality, not the monsters they
appear to be when viewed by those who are uneducated about them. The reality of
the situation is that crossbows are seldom used for criminal activity, they're
no more powerful or dangerous than any other form of archery equipment, and
they are so vastly inferior to firearms as to render any real comparison
impossible. Certainly no more legislation than a minimum age to purchase or
acquire a crossbow would be sufficient to counter most concerns.

Regardless of this, if you see fit that crossbows be regulated, I propose that
all archery equipment should be treated equally, since to do otherwise would
surely be based on perception alone. No law should intentionally ignore reality
and cater to this type of prejudice.

Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you very much. We will start our rounds of questioning.

Madame Venne, for ten minutes.

[Translation]

Mrs. Venne (Saint-Hubert): Welcome. You write in your brief that since February
15, 1995 only three pistol crossbows have been turned in although these weapons
are prohibited since January 1st. From that, you conclude that the law is not
working. Wouldn't it be more exact to say that this is because crossbow owners
are irresponsible and have no respect for the law.? Don't you think it amounts
to civil disobedience?

[English]

Mr. Troubridge: I don't believe it's an act of civil disobedience as much as I
believe that it's because of people not understanding the severity of the law.
They don't consider a pistol crossbow to be dangerous. They own them. They
shoot them regularly. They see how ineffective they are. They just don't take
the whole thing seriously.

A lot of it has to do with lack of education too. People haven't been made
aware that these crossbows have been banned. Therefore, they cannot comply,
because they are not aware of the law.

[Translation]

Mrs. Venne: Are they competing in shooting clubs with what we call pistol
crossbows?

[English]

Mr. Troubridge: I'm not aware of any formal competition with pistol crossbows.
Most of the competition that exists with them is of a very informal nature.
They are used for hunting small game where they are legal, but other than that
they're not very useful because, as I said, they are not accurate enough, they
don't shoot far enough and they're not powerful enough to be used.

[Translation]

Mrs. Venne: I suppose you recall the murder of Patricia Allen. It was committed
here in Ottawa, with a crossbow, and her ex-spouse was convicted. Now, in your
brief, you claim that crime with crossbows is so very rare that statistics are
not kept. As for me, I think that the murder of a young promising lawyer is a
hell of a statistic!

Her death proves that a crossbow can kill the same as a firearm. So, how then
can you contend that it is less dangerous because it is difficult to reset? One
shot is all it takes.

.1200 [Image]

[English]

Mr. Troubridge: On the case of Patricia Allen that you're describing, I was
involved very extensively with Kim Campbell and the Department of Justice at
that time regarding crossbows. It should be noted that's one of the three
murders committed with crossbows on which I have been able to find information.
It should also be noted that, at the distance at which she was murdered, she
could have been killed with a knife or a baseball bat just as easily. The crime
was committed at extremely close range.

Unfortunately for me and all the other crossbow shooters in Canada, the person
chose in his madness to use a crossbow. If that murder had been committed with
a baseball bat, I rather doubt that little leagues would be sitting in my place
right now defending themselves.

I agree with you that it was a horrendous crime. It is a very terrible thing
that this sort of thing could happen.

[Translation]

Mrs. Venne: The crossbow is a still powerful weapon. It is silent and
efficient. I wonder if it is not the preferred weapon of poachers or lifestock
rusthers. I wonder too if it is not for this reason that several provinces
prohibited hunting with crossbows. What do you think?

[English]

Mr. Troubridge: In the brief that we provided we have copies of letters sent to
us in response to our questions to the different game agencies. To my
knowledge, no game agency specifically stated that poaching was a problem with
crossbows. The preferred weapon of a poacher would be something that would
shoot farther and kill faster in order that they could commit their crime,
gather the game they'd killed and leave the region before the authorities could
arrive.

I don't have the specifics. You'll have to go through the brief yourself or
else I'm going to have to sit here and go through one by one. I don't believe
there was one game department that stated that was a problem. Alberta I think
stated the concerns about livestock being killed with crossbows but said they
hadn't heard of any specific instances where it had happened.

Mr. Ramsay (Crowfoot): Was anyone in your business contacted by the Department
of Justice? Did you meet with either the Minister of Justice or his officials
prior to the introduction of Bill C-68?

Mr. Troubridge: Approximately on November 15 I caught wind that crossbows were
being considered for inclusion. At that point I began to make inquiries with
the Department of Justice. My initial response was to try to contact Allan
Rock's office. I was screened so effectively that I couldn't make any
reasonable contact with them.

At that point I returned to some of the people I'd dealt with during the Kim
Campbell era, after the Patricia Allen murder.

Mr. Ramsay: Who were those people?

Mr. Troubridge: A man by the name of Mr. Fleischman comes to mind.

Mr. Ramsay: From where?

Mr. Troubridge: He was on the committee at that time studying firearms.

Mr. Ramsay: Is he with the Department of Justice?

Mr. Troubridge: Yes, he was.

Mr. Ramsay: Is he still with the Department of Justice?

Mr. Troubridge: He's no longer involved in the firearms issue.

Mr. Ramsay: Were you able to make any representation whatever to the Minister
of Justice prior to the introduction of Bill C-68?

Mr. Troubridge: Several days before the introduction, I finally made contact
with the Department of Justice, with the firearms task group.

.1205 [Image]

Mr. Ramsay: Who did you meet with?

Mr. Troubridge: I met with Carolyn Saint-Denis.

Mr. Ramsay: Did you present your concerns at that time?

Mr. Troubridge: Yes, I did.

Mr. Ramsay: Do you remember what date it was?

Mr. Troubridge: It would probably have been around November 25, 1994. I don't
have it exactly.

Mr. Ramsay: If this bill passes, to what extent is it going to have a negative
effect, if any, upon your business?

Mr. Troubridge: The immediate problems that we experienced as of December 1,
1994, were that the word was incorrectly passed out that crossbows in general
were banned and my sales immediately plummeted. In terms of sales, it was as if
December didn't exist.

As we work to educate people - because very little solid information was
available for a span of approximately two or three months - things have started
to come back and people are starting to recover from that initial shock.

Regarding my business, one of my biggest concerns is that the fact that you
need certification to purchase a crossbow will scare people away from
purchasing crossbows towards other forms of archery equipment. This really does
not seem fair to me when other forms of archery equipment are certainly capable
of doing everything a crossbow can do and then some.

Mr. Ramsay: During your meeting with the official from the Department of
Justice, did she give you the rationale for banning the hand-held crossbow and
registering the larger ones?

Mr. Troubridge: At that point no one would tell me what was going on, because
the bill had not been presented and until this occurred I was working in the
dark. All I could do was give the input I thought was necessary and hope it was
being used.

Mr. Ramsay: How many people does your company employ?

Mr. Troubridge: About ten.

Mr. Ramsay: Have you had to lay anyone off as a result of the drop in business
experienced because of Bill C-68?

Mr. Troubridge: No, not immediately. We're hoping we can try to get our U.S.
sales up enough to try to counter the drop in sales that we expect to see in
Canada if it goes through in its present form and keep from laying people off.

Mr. Ramsay: Were you manufacturing the hand-held crossbow?

Mr. Troubridge: No, we weren't.

Mr. Ramsay: So that doesn't affect you?

Mr. Troubridge: It does affect me from the standpoint that the precedent set by
banning a crossbow or any form of archery equipment that is inefficient, as a
hand-held crossbow is, leaves us wide open for future legislation.

Mr. Ramsay: How do you feel about what the government has done?

Mr. Troubridge: I honestly can't understand why crossbows in particular are
being singled out in this issue. I'm mad about it, because I've worked hard to
educate people about crossbows. When we started in business, the crossbow was a
black art. The instructional video that you saw was done by our company to
educate users of everybody's crossbows to make them safer, more effective
archers. To be threatened by this legislation makes us think that maybe the
best thing for us to do is to look south. We have to consider the best thing
for our business.

Mr. Ramsay: When did you hear about the Order in Council to ban the crossbow?

Mr. Troubridge: At 7:30 a.m. on December 1 I went into my office and the phone
rang and someone reported that the Sun had run an article saying that all
crossbows were banned. In the ensuing confusion, it took most of the day to get
some sort of assurance of just what was going on.

Mr. Ramsay: How do you feel about these kinds of laws being passed by Order in
Council without debate in the House of Commons?

Mr. Troubridge: The Order in Council gives the government an amount of power
that threatens all owners of any private property. Because of the recent
murders in Ottawa, they could ban baseball bats, without question, by Order in
Council. The threat that is there to all owners of all forms of firearms and
archery equipment is very real and of great concern.

.1210 [Image]

Mr. Ramsay: For the record, the process by which the Orders in Council were
passed has been declared invalid by the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench in a
case you may be familiar with. That case is proceeding through the court of
appeal. Rather than wait until that was cleared up, the Minister of Justice has
proceeded with five more Orders in Council using the same process that was
invalidated by that court decision. I have great concerns about that because of
the possibility that his assumption and his speculation are that the case will
be overturned. I have great concerns about that, and I have great concerns
about the use of Orders in Council where the elected representatives of the
people do not have a chance to examine the legislation that impacts upon people
such as yourself, as it is obviously impacting upon you.

I have no further statement to make or question to ask.

The Chair: Just for clarification, government cannot use Orders in Council
unless there's enabling legislation. Consequently, they couldn't ban baseball
bats by Order in Council, because they're not included within the definition of
a firearm or the other.... There would have to be some enabling legislation
that would allow them, by Order in Council, to add to the list of prohibited or
restricted weapons things that were within the definition of a weapon or a
firearm or whatever. But they couldn't just put this or that on the list.

As Mr. Ramsay said, there can be disagreement on the interpretations, and court
cases could ensue. As a lawyer, I'm fairly positive that the government can't
use Orders in Council unless there is enabling legislation that fills out the
details of the law passed by Parliament. They cannot go beyond the boundaries
of the legislation that enables the Order in Council.

Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Chairman, on a point of information - perhaps you can put it on
the record - my understanding is that the Order in Council banning the
hand-held crossbow and making it law that the larger crossbow has to be
registered was passed by virtue of Bill C-17. I don't know of other enabling
legislation.

The Chair: That's because we're dealing with weapons. I forget who said they
could even ban baseball bats by Order in Council. Since the hand-held crossbow
is a weapon, in a sense.... One could argue about the interpretation: is it or
is it not a weapon? But I don't think you could say this was a weapon or that
was a weapon. Because I don't want things to be left on the record, I just want
to make it clear that a government can do anything by Order in Council - unless
there's enabling legislation.

Mr. Ramsay: Was Bill C-17 the enabling legislation?

The Chair: I'd have to look at the case. I'm not dealing with those cases
before the court of appeal. You're absolutely right. I'm not arguing with your
point that there can be differences of interpretation. All I want to say is
there was a point left without response that you can ban anything by Orders in
Council. You cannot ban anything but you can ban certain things. Then it's open
to argument.

Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Chairman, I see by the body language that Mr. Bartlett would
like to say something about this.

The Chair: Fine.

Mr. Ramsay: Perhaps he could clear up some of this.

Mr. William Bartlett (Committee Researcher): The definition of a weapon is
basically something that is either designed to be used as a weapon or is
intended to be used as a weapon. A baseball bat could be a weapon for certain
purposes. For example, if somebody was carrying it for that purpose, they could
be charged with possession of a weapon for a purpose dangerous to the public
peace. But things like baseball bats, golf clubs - any blunt object that could
be used - aren't designed and manufactured to be weapons. So none of these
things that could be used to create harm when they're not designed for that
could be made prohibited or restricted by Order in Council.

.1215 [Image]

Mr. Troubridge: One of my concerns is that far more people are killed with
baseball bats than with pistol crossbows. Which one of these two items is more
commonly used as a weapon?

The Chair: It's legitimate for you to argue that the legislation we have before
us should be amended. As I pointed out, many things can be used to kill a
person. Somebody could choke me to death with this wire, and somebody could
probably stab me with the fountain pen. But the principal object of these
things as manufactured objects, as Mr. Bartlett pointed out, is either to write
or to do other things.

The principal purpose of some things is to kill either an enemy or an animal.
For example, the crossbow shoots an arrow. In historical terms, as you pointed
out in the video, crossbows were used militarily, and for hunting. The baseball
bat is meant for recreational purposes, but it could be used for a weapon or to
kill, as a hockey stick could be used, or as an overdose of aspirin could be
used. But their principal purposes are other than that; therefore they are not
categorized as weapons. This doesn't take away from your argument in your
brief. Everything in your brief is a legitimate point of view, whether we will
be convinced or not.

We're a bit off the subject. I didn't want to leave it on the record that
anything could be banned by Order in Council. It could not. What's open to
argument is what is or is not a weapon, and the principal object when a thing
is being manufactured.

Perhaps we should continue the questioning. This was an interesting discussion.
There is no doubt that your crossbow is something different from everything
else we've been dealing with.

I move to Mr. Bodnar.

Mr. Bodnar (Saskatoon - Dundurn): I won't be using ten minutes, because I don't
have that many questions.

In comparing the crossbow to the longbow, is it correct that the longbow has
greater accuracy?

Mr. Troubridge: It has equal accuracy. The modern compound bow will shoot at
higher velocities and with equal accuracy.

Mr. Bodnar: To approximately what distance is a crossbow accurate? From the
film it appeared to be about thirty yards.

Mr. Troubridge: In reality, for hunting purposes, we recommend thirty yards as
a maximum, at the very outside, because in a hunting situation you want to hit
something the size of this piece of paper if you're hunting big game.

Mr. Bodnar: What about the longbow?

Mr. Troubridge: It's about the same.

Mr. Bodnar: What about the compound bow?

Mr. Troubridge: It's about the same.

Mr. Bodnar: Are they all comparable?

Mr. Troubridge: Yes, they are.

Mr. Bodnar: I have a problem with this. If one is made a weapon, or restricted
in some way, and the other two are commonly purchased, either all of them
should be in that category or none should be. Do you agree?

Mr. Troubridge: I would agree, with one exception. My exception would be that a
minimum poundage of draw weight should be found in order to enable people -
high schools where archery is taught, for instance - to continue training
people to use these bows. They provide a tremendous recreational opportunity
for scout camps and that sort of thing.

Mr. Bodnar: What is the hand-held crossbow? What is really the purpose it
serves?

Mr. Troubridge: I guess you could call them toys. What purpose does any toy
serve? It's like an air rifle as compared to a high-powered rifle. It simulates
the same type of aiming and shooting situation, but it's not powerful enough
for any use other than target shooting.

Mr. Bodnar: My understanding is that some of the long-distance truckers in
Canada are now arming themselves with hand-held crossbows. Is that correct?

Mr. Troubridge: It might be correct, but if I were a trucker I'd rather have a
baseball bat. At least you'd have repeat firepower.

Mr. Bodnar: I see. Maybe that can be passed on.

.1220 [Image]

I've defended people who have killed people with a bat, but never with a
crossbow.

Thank you. I have no further questions. Ms Phinney will use the balance of my
time.

Ms Phinney (Hamilton Mountain): I have to admit I know very little about any
kind of bow. I've spent a fair amount of time in the last few weeks in a group
with people who are interested in various guns, and in hunting, as well as with
several people who use bows a lot and cross between the guns and the bows. I
have a statement here made by one of them. In fact, they all agreed.

     Hunting bows - compound, traditional and crossbows - must be included in
     the firearm registry and level system. They are firearms and are
     recognized as such within the provincial hunting regulations. The concerns
     that are voiced about handguns and long guns can be equally applied to
     bows.

This is their statement. I'd like you to comment on that.

If only crossbows were in the legislation, as they now are, where you have to
get your permit in order to have them, you would, without any question,
definitely be at a competitive disadvantage. If they're all put in - and you've
mentioned that they all have the same capacity and are used for the same thing
- that would be better for you, and you'd be happier with that.

Would you first comment on the statement made by people who use bows?

Mr. Troubridge: On your comment about provincial standpoints regarding archery
equipment for game laws, most game laws define anything used for taking game as
a firearm. It's simply a definition of convenience. They don't infer anything
about the power or effectiveness of the bows. As a matter of fact, if you look
at the game laws, most provinces give very long seasons for archery equipment
in recognition of the fact that, per animal harvested, the time required is
more than ten times as long with archery as it is with a rifle or firearm.

Ms Phinney: I think he's referring to having a permit.

Mr. Troubridge: You certainly need a licence to hunt with a bow. Hunting is
licensed no matter how it's done.

Ms Phinney: They're suggesting that rather than having just the crossbow in
there, all of them should be, just to get your permit.

Mr. Troubridge: I'll be honest. From my business standpoint, it does put me at
a very great competitive disadvantage.

I would like to see an even playing field, not just because of the economic
situation it will create, but because of the inequality it will create in the
law.

The first time somebody uses a compound bow - as has happened in the United
States several times recently - to commit a crime, they'll be put in anyway.
It'll be something that will happen down the road - in three or five years, who
knows?

Ms Phinney: So your opinion is either don't have crossbows in at all, contrary
to how we have it now, or you agree with putting them all in - one or the
other.

Mr. Troubridge: I think that some equally applied regulation that is not too
offensive may be an advantage, instead of dropping the whole issue and going
through it again somewhere down the road.

Mr. Harper (Calgary West): At first blush, I would tend to share your concerns
about the competitive position in which you've been put. I also must admit, not
having heard much of the debate in this committee, that I have trouble
understanding what the public policy purpose is behind this particular aspect
of the proposal.

.1225 [Image]

You mentioned the pistol crossbows and you talked about concealability as a
factor in legislation. Is there any way of modifying a longer crossbow to make
it concealable after it's manufactured?

Mr. Troubridge: You could shorten the stock. That would make it shorter by
approximately6 inches or 8 inches, but you'd still have the width of the limbs.
As you saw in the video, the limbs are quite wide on a crossbow. So you can't
overcome that problem. Honestly, I don't think you could ever make one
concealable.

Mr. Harper: How much expertise do you need to manufacture a crossbow?

Mr. Troubridge: A good one?

Mr. Harper: One that would kill somebody.

Mr. Troubridge: That depends on the basic definition of a crossbow. To design
something that will propel an arrow with elastic bands like a slingshot is
quite simple, but actually to manufacture the limbed portion of the crossbow is
very difficult. So to make a real crossbow that would fit in the definition we
just discussed in the legislation I'd say is difficult.

The Chair: What would be the cost? Mr. Harper, do you want to know what the
cost would be?

Mr. Harper: No, I just want to know if with a small shop, a couple of
mechanical saws, could I make a crossbow that wouldn't be in the definition of
the legislation that I could kill somebody with from across the street?

Mr. Troubridge: A crossbow that wouldn't be in the legislation?

Mr. Harper: Yes, that would be outside the scope of the legislation.

Mr. Troubridge: You could do it with a slingshot and a piece of a coat-hanger.

Mr. Harper: I have just one last question. I was confused by this. I'm not
trying to trick you; I'd honestly like you to give me an answer to this
question.

When you were answering Madame Venne's question about the statement in here
that the police have only had three pistol crossbows turned over although
they're now outlawed, you indicated that one of the primary reasons for that
was lack of knowledge of the new law. However, when you were asked by Mr.
Ramsay about what the effect of these proposals had been on your business, you
said that due to the knowledge of that your business had dried up. It just
seems to me at first blush that those answers are contradictory. Could you
clarify that for me?

Mr. Troubridge: Certainly I can. The people who use hunting crossbows -
powerful, accurate, efficient bows such as we produce - have an ear to the
news. They're concerned with this legislation and they watch it very carefully.
The people who purchase pistol crossbows, in general, are not people who are
interested to that degree. They're people who buy them to shoot in their
basements; they set up a dart board and play darts with them with their
buddies. The concept that the pistol crossbow could actually be legislated
against is so far beyond what they could believe that I guess it just doesn't
sink in with them.

I talked to a police officer the other day from Waterloo Regional who said that
they were investigating a break-in and they found one sitting on a gentleman's
desk. When they pointed out that it was a prohibited weapon and that it was
illegal for him to have and that he could be charged for having it, he said he
didn't know and asked them please to take it.

Mr. Harper: So, generally, the point of sale for these kinds of instruments is
different? Is that what you're telling me?

Mr. Troubridge: That's correct.

The Chair: I'm a great lover of history, and of course we all know from history
that the Normans of England defeated the Normans of France at the Battle of
Cr�cy because they had switched from crossbows to longbows and the yeomen had
these thousands of longbows. I've always had the impression that the longbow
was a more accurate, longer-distance weapon than the crossbow historically, but
from what you're telling me now, one is not more powerful than the other.

Mr. Troubridge: You're talking historically. There was a big difference between
the equipment available 600 or 800 years ago and what's available today. The
longbow shot a projectile that was more aerodynamically shaped and it could
shoot it over a longer distance. So at Cr�cy, before the crossbowmen could
position themselves to fire one shot, they were already being -

The Chair: Killed.

.1230 [Image]

Mr. Troubridge: They were under a hail of arrows.

With the bows of those days, the poundage was so high, because they had to use
steel limbs, that they had to crank them up using a cranequin. Their rate of
fire was extremely slow - possibly one shot every minute, while a longbowman
could empty his quiver in thirty seconds. This is the reasoning for what
happened back then.

There are still inequalities in the rate of fire between these two pieces of
equipment.

The Chair: Can a conventional bow fire arrows much more quickly than crossbows
can?

Mr. Troubridge: Yes, at approximately half the rate.

The Chair: Are the arrows used today in a crossbow much different from the
arrows used in the conventional bow, and are they more deadly, with respect to
hunting or otherwise?

Mr. Troubridge: No. They're just slightly shorter.

The Chair: You're a manufacturer. I understand you're the only Canadian
manufacturer. Is that correct?

Mr. Troubridge: Yes.

The Chair: Do you have competition in Canada from foreign manufacturers?

Mr. Troubridge: Yes. There are probably about a dozen manufacturers of
crossbows world-wide. Most of those presenting real competition to us in Canada
are from the United States.

The Chair: I made a mistake, but I thought Mr. Harper was going to ask you the
cost of an ordinary crossbow that you would sell. What would be the retail
cost?

Mr. Troubridge: The cost of our particular bow is approximately $450.

The Chair: What is the cost of the arrows?

Mr. Troubridge: The arrows cost about $12 each.

The Chair: At one point you asked about the reason for including this provision
in the legislation. I was in Parliament when Ms Allen was killed. The general
public know what they read in the newspapers and hear on the news. They don't
see your video or hear about the hunters very much. Many people were upset and
shocked in Ottawa, Montreal and beyond. There were a lot of people writing me
letters saying to ban these things, without knowing much about them.

You started by saying you had a problem - I wrote it down - with public
relations, or that they've been considered a black weapon or something to that
effect. I think it all stems from that. The general public has a perception of
the crossbow as being bad or evil, maybe because of that one murder a few years
ago.

Mr. Troubridge: Right. At that time I was in contact with the Canadian
Association of Chiefs of Police. I was asked to defend crossbows against a
document by the Timmins bow hunters association, which was provided to the
police association, calling for a ban. That was really motivated by greed.
These people didn't want to share their bow hunting season with crossbows and
saw that as an opportunity to foster ill will.

Mr. Thompson (Wild Rose): Being used to living on a farm - my colleague who
just left reminded me of those days - my dad could very quickly manufacture
something very similar to what you have, held like a crossbow, made out of
bamboo and string, strung tightly. It was very effective. We used it to shoot
varmints - weasels and skunks and whatever else might come around the chicken
coops. I tried to get my share of the weasels and skunks, and consequently we
had a lot of fried chicken to eat - which means I wasn't a very straight
shooter.

We had that thing and it had a definite purpose. According to all standards, if
these bows and everything fall into this category, if you have a farmer in
rural Canada anywhere - it doesn't matter where - and they manufacture these
kinds of things for a purpose, the law says that you must now spend money and
register these kinds of things.

.1235 [Image]

The Chair: Just for purchases. The registering provisions don't apply to the
crossbows, just the licence. You need a licence to purchase.

Mr. Thompson: Just to purchase?

The Chair: Yes.

Mr. Thompson: So those kinds of things would never fall into this, unless there
was an Order in Council or something? Earlier you said if the purpose was to
kill, and it would be a weapon, it would fit in that category. Would it not?

Mr. Bartlett: It would be a weapon, but it wouldn't require registration under
Bill C-68.

Mr. Thompson: But an Order in Council could make that requirement if that
became a common practice?

The Chair: We have to look at that. Right now, you don't have to have them
registered. I think Mr. Troubridge is concerned about what is there, the
requirement to license people who buy them.

Mr. Troubridge: That's correct. At this point, we're looking at a 1978 FAC to
purchase a crossbow.

Mr. Thompson: You know of no one individually making their own home-made
crossbows?

Mr. Troubridge: Definitely there are people making their own.

Mr. Thompson: There are quite a few, right?

Mr. Troubridge: I have a copy of an old article from The Boy Mechanic telling
you how to build your crossbow out of a car spring and an old piece of wood.

Mr. Thompson: I know it's not a common practice, but it is done quite often. I
just wonder how long it would be before those kinds of things would be part of
this whole thing.

The Chair: If I understand correctly, under the present legislation, if you
make the thing referred to by Mr. Thompson at home for your own use it could be
just as dangerous or have the same capacity as one that's bought, but it's not
covered by the legislation. Is that not correct? What's covered by the
legislation is the acquisition of a crossbow, not the manufacturing of the
crossbow. So the legislation is a bit incomplete. It covers a very small part
of the thing, which affects you, but it doesn't cover the one you'd make at
home. Am I right or wrong on that?

Mr. Troubridge: I would say no, it doesn't. However, I should point out that in
the twelve years that we've been in business and for the tens or hundreds of
thousands of people I've been in contact with in regard to this, I don't think
I've seen what you would call an effective crossbow built at home.

The Chair: Mr. Thompson said that on his farm they made one that was effective
enough to kill varmints, anyway.

Mr. Thompson: Not in my hands.

Mr. Troubridge: Remember, it's much easier to take a stave of ash and a couple
of pieces of willow and build yourself a primitive bow and arrow than it is to
build a crossbow, by far. Both would be capable of doing the same harm.

If the legislation goes through as read then you might wish to require an
acquisition certificate to purchase limbs, for instance, which are the hardest
individual part of the bow to produce in a way that will be powerful enough to
project an arrow fast enough to do harm.

Ms Torsney (Burlington): Certainly I'm impressed by the amount of public
relations and stuff that you have done for your own business interest. Of the
800 small crossbows that were sold in Canada alone last year, how many did you
sell?

Mr. Troubridge: None. We do not manufacture pistol crossbows; we manufacture
hunting crossbows. As a matter of fact, we are right now starting to
manufacture target crossbows, but the largest market for them at this point is
Europe.

Ms Torsney: If changes are made in this legislation, can we count on you to
help communicate with your former clients in some kind of after-sales follow-up
on whatever changes are made to the legislation so that they will be able to
comply?

Mr. Troubridge: We've been doing that since December 1 on a continual basis. As
quickly as we're being fed information, we're putting it through our system,
because we have over600 Canadian dealers we can use as signposts.

Ms Torsney: If you can help us identify who are the salespeople for those 800
small crossbows, it would certainly help those people comply with the law if
they had information and after-sales follow-up.

Mr. Troubridge: Certainly I will do anything I can to help you.

.1240 [Image]

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. and Mrs. Troubridge, for informing us on
this subject, on which we don't receive much testimony. It has certainly proved
useful.

Mr. Troubridge: Thank you for the opportunity.

The Chair: The meeting's adjourned until 3:30 p.m., in this room. Our witnesses
will be the RCMP with respect to the whole business of registration,
compliance, etc., with respect to guns.

Return to Committee Home Page