The New Brunswick Firearms Alliance
A Brief on the Impact of Bill C-68
Introduction
The creation of the New Brunswick Firearms Alliance was the result of
grass roots concern over the current Government's proposals for further
firearm regulation. This brief will review Bill C-68's potential social
and financial impact, legal precedence setting, lack of government
continuity, and democratic subversion. It is the NBFA's contention that
the true agenda of Bill C-68 is the elimination of private ownership of
firearms in Canada.
Social Impact
Bill C-68 involves the potential criminalization of Canadian firearm
owners. For the first time all firearm owners will be licensed. Simple
possession of ammunition will be a serious offense for a person who
forgets a couple of shotgun shells in his jacket pocket after a day of
hunting. Only individuals licensed for firearm ownership will be
allowed to transport ammunition. The long standing tradition of a
spouse or neighbor picking up a box of shells for a hunter at the local
store will be considered a criminal act.
The registration of hunting rifles and shotguns at Canada's borders has
the potential to make the clients of outfitters criminals should they
fail to stop at the Canadian customs on their way home (Section 36).
They will have to pay to export their own firearm out of the country. In
most democratic countries, visitors do not report to the customs offices
of the country they are leaving.
If this legislation should pass, firearm owners will have less rights
than other Canadians as defined in the constitution. The broad powers of
this legislation under the guise of inspection essentially eliminates a
firearm owners right to unreasonable search and seizure. It appears that
the government views firearm owners since potential criminals since they
will be included in Canadian Police Information Computer (CPIC) files
along with criminals. Police are directed to handle firearm owners with
greater prejudice than other citizens. No other hobbyist, sports
person, or recreational activity is scrutinized as closely as the
firearm community. Firearm owners have been complying with the
expanding spectrum of laws imposed on them beginning in 1978. No sooner
are one set of laws implemented before the government begins the talk of
further legislation.
In this day and age it is very evident that Canadians want less
government intrusion into their lives, not more. The Liberal
government wants us to believe that this legislation is necessary for
the safety of the public, when even Mr. Rock agrees that this bill will
not guarantee the safety of all Canadians. The present laws are not
being enforced to their maximum for the criminal use of firearms. The
focus should be on making individuals accountable for their actions as
opposed to increasing regulatory control.
Canada has some of the most restrictive firearm laws in the free world.
Purchases of hand guns are highly regulated yet they are prevalent in
crime because criminals smuggle or steal their firearms. Yet the
penalties for such action are plea bargained away. The legislation
should target the criminal system so that firearm violations cannot be
swept under the legal carpet.
Provisions in C-68 will impact upon family and inheritance rights. What
will be the cost when an owner of a collection of firearms dies and
wills his collection to his heirs? They will all have to be re-
registered to the new owners at a cost that will most definitely be
prohibitive.
As in the McKnight case in New Brunswick , law enforcement agencies can
descend upon a house, potentially without warrants, force children,
under threat of imprisonment, to divulge information, and leave the
impression that the person or persons living there have committed some
heinous crime.
C-68 will have serious repercussions on Sports Clubs and hobbyists.
Every day of the year Canadians enjoy different recreational activities.
Photography, car rallies, and brew making are but a few examples. Yet,
potentially a camera can be used to create child pornography, speeding
cars potentially can kill pedestrians, and home brewers could
potentially intoxicate people who, while under the influence, may commit
horrific acts. Rational people understand that any object can be used
for an evil purpose. Why should all people have to be penalized, just
because a few in society misuse what they have? The honest answer
simply is that they should not. Individuals should be held responsible
for their own behavior as opposed to regulating or prohibiting the
activities in which they participate.
Bill C-68 will bury the firearm community in bureaucratic paperwork.
This bill can eliminate all future historical firearm collectors, as
well as destroy family heirlooms. It can make owning firearms a rich
mans game.
The regulation of firearms and their owners is changing so rapidly that
it is nearly impossible to navigate the legal jungle and remain on the
right side of the law. As many regulations appear to be in a gray zone,
it will be increasingly difficult for firearm owners to ensure that
their activities fall within the scope of the law.
Owners of restricted firearms will be relegated to being either a
collector or a shooter . There is no guarantee that the owner of a
firearm bought as a collector's item will be issued a permit to
transport for the purpose of target shooting. If a person collects
automobiles they usually want to drive them, and by the same token,
firearm collectors may wish to shoot their firearms. This will not be
permitted under the legislation. The government will require persons to
dispose of their firearms should they not participate regularly in their
field.
There exists a great deal of inequity between firearm owners within C-
68. While owners of prohibited firearms such as February 14th handguns
will be allowed to continue to shoot them, owners of other prohibited
firearms such as rifles commonly used in services matches will not.
Another example of inequity is the fact it will cost significantly more
to register restricted firearms than non-restricted.
Although it is not contained in the bill, Mr. Rock has stated that he
will seek an exemption for Olympic class handguns affected by the
February 14 prohibition. This is strictly a politically motivated
concession designed to disguise the fact that the government did not do
its homework before writing this section of the bill. As with all world
class sports, Olympic shooting requires a minor league from which future
teams can be built. Without the availability of more affordable
handguns, the Canadian Olympic Shooting Team is relegated to extinction.
Fiscal Impact
Justice Minister Allan Rock has recently presented a document, Financial
Framework for Bill C-68, detailing the cost of the initiatives in this
bill. According to this document, the Justice Department estimates the
cost of Bill C-68 to be $118.9 million over and above the cost of the
current firearm control system - $85 million of which for the universal
registration system. This figure is deceptive and grossly under-
inflated.
Of the $85 million, $48.8 million is slated for system development and
implementation and $4.1 million for linking the registration system with
CPIC. These are one-time setup costs. Ongoing costs are to be covered
by the $14.2 million for firearm registration at borders and $17.9
million for "Federal-Provincial/Territorial Firearms Financial
Agreements". Significantly missing from these estimates is the cost of
actually processing some 3 million firearm licenses and 7 million
firearm registrations. It presently costs $82.69 to register a single
restricted firearm (TR1994-9e, the Minister's Review of Firearms
Registration report), and Mr. Rock has stated that it will cost $60 to
register a firearm owner. Surely the government does not pretend to
suggest that the $17.9 million allocated for "Federal-
Provincial/Territorial Firearms Financial Agreements" will cover the
cost to register 3 million firearm owners and 7 million firearms.
Estimates based on the current cost of the existing registration system
place this cost closer to $800 million.
Mr. Rock's cost estimates are based on the assumption that there are
approximately 3 million firearm owners and 7 million firearms in Canada.
These estimates are obtained from a flawed 1991 Angus-Reid telephone
survey in which a number of household were called and asked if any
firearms were present in the home, and if so, how many. This is
analogous to receiving a call from a complete stranger asking if a
person had cash or jewelry in their home, and if so what is the value of
such. How many would truthfully answer such a question.
In 1976, the Solicitor General estimated there were 18 million firearms
owned by 6 million persons. Testimony by Justice Department officials
at the Committee hearings on Bill C-17 indicated that the long-term net-
importation of firearms into Canada is 190,000 per year. (The Canadian
Firearm Control Debate) Based on this information the actual number of
firearms in Canada today would be in excess of 21 million.
Mr. Rock has purposely used the lower figures in his proposal for two
reasons. Firstly to achieve lower cost estimates in order to sell the
proposal, and secondly to make the program appear to be successful once
implemented. If the Justice Department estimated there were a total of
only 7 million firearms, and the actual amount was 21 million, a
registration compliance rate of only 30% would look extremely
successful.
The Financial Framework for Bill C-68 also states that fees will apply
for "authorizations to carry, transport, import and export" although it
does not indicate what these will be. This gives the government the
latitude to increase the cost of participating in shooting activities
until it is no longer financially feasible to continue.
The fact that C-68 devalues personal property is also significant from a
fiscal perspective. Although the government states it will not
confiscate without compensation, that is exactly what it is doing with
58% of all legal handguns in Canada along with thousands of rifles and
shotguns prohibited by Order in Council. Delaying the confiscation
until the owners death does not change the fact that it is still
confiscation. Because the owners are free to buy and sell between other
grandfathered owners does not change the fact that the value of their
property is severely reduced. This is exactly the same as advising
someone that in ten years their house will be expropriated with no
compensation, but in the meantime they are free to sell it. Obviously
this would seriously affect the property value.
The value of the handguns prohibited as of February 14, 1995 alone is in
the hundreds of millions. This is property legally acquired by law
abiding Canadians and eventual confiscation without compensation is
outright theft by the state.
The proposed legislation will also impact on revenue generated via
tourism. Canada's abundant game resources have long been a significant
tourist attraction for hunters and fisherman from the United States and
other countries. Until the present, it has only been a slight
inconvenience for American hunters to bring their firearms across the
border for a hunting trip in Canada. With the introduction of Bill C-68
this inconvenience will be significantly increased to the point that
many of these sportsman will decide that there is just to much red tape
to bother coming to Canada. Several major and influential U.S. groups
representing millions of hunters and fisherman have already advised
their members to avoid not only hunting and fishing trips to Canada, but
all tourism as a result of the introduction of the Bill. Their estimate
of the potential financial impact of the exceeds $500 million annually.
The possible impact that bill C-68 has on small business is staggering.
In New Brunswick alone, hunting is a $100 million per year industry - $6
billion for all of Canada (Canadian Wildlife Service, 1987) . Hundreds,
if not thousands of small businesses and outfitters could simply not
continue to operate without the supporting business that the hunting
season generates. C-68 will cripple this business by forcing thousands
of sportsman to give up hunting because of the expense and inconvenience
involved.
Provincial Revenues will be greatly affected under the new legislation.
In 1994 New Brunswick sold 129,085 resident and 5274 non-resident
hunting licenses at a combined cost of over $2.7 million (NB Fish and
Game). The average Canadian hunter spends $769 and the average American
hunter spends $1022 (Canadian Wildlife Service, 1991) on hunting related
purchases every year, generating over $11.5 million in PST and $7.3
million in GST alone. The overly restrictive nature of Bill C-68 will
force many of these hunters to give up their sport resulting in a
potential loss of millions of dollars annually to the Province of New
Brunswick.
What is particularly disturbing about the bill is the reckless
expenditure of public funds in light of Canada's current fiscal reality.
Canada recently received a downgrade in its credit rating for the
financial irresponsibility of it's government. Fiscal restraint is a
theme that has been reiterated ad-nauseam as the reason for the
continuing cuts to social programs and government services. The
government of Canada cannot expect its citizens to support a program
that will cost hundreds of millions of dollars without any proof that it
will be effective. The Auditor Generals 1993 report strongly
recommended that the effectiveness of existing firearm legislation be
studied before any new legislation is introduced. The Minister of
Justice chose to disregard this recommendation because he "thinks it
will work" ("I think it will help. I don't want to overstate it. I
don't want to give any guarantees." - Ottawa Citizen, December 1, 1994,
A3).
Precedence Setting
Bill C-68 contains significant legal precedents. Precedents which if
unaltered by the committee or limited by expensive court challenges,
have the potential to change the entire character of Canadian life, as
defined by the Constitution and the Canadian Charter of Rights and
Freedoms. The following are two examples of this.
1. Bill C-68 is about confiscation without compensation of legally
owned private property (Sections 12, 65 and 69). Fifty eight percent of
the presently registered firearms have been declared prohibited and will
be confiscated without compensation upon the death of their current
owners.
2. Bill C-68 is about the elimination of the right to be protected
from unreasonable search and seizure (Sections 98 through 101). Section
99 of Mr. Rock's bill states that anytime police "believe on reasonable
grounds" that a firearm, ammunition or any record thereof exist they can
enter any place and search any container or data processing system.
Although section 101 states they cannot search without a warrant or the
occupants consent, other sections make failure to consent a criminal
offense. Section 100, for instance requires every person found in a
place to "give the police all reasonable assistance". Section 107
states that failure to comply with section 100 makes a person guilty of
an indictable offense liable to imprisonment for two years.
Government Irrationality
The government appears to be significantly altering its policies towards
the firearm community within C-68. The Bill allows for sweeping powers
via regulations and flies in the face of research completed by the
government's own representatives. The Auditor General's Report (1993)
criticized the consideration of new firearm regulation without examining
the benefit of current laws. Provisions in C-17 have not been in effect
long enough for their impact to be measured. The government is
proceeding with this expensive Bill without proper research into the
effectiveness of current legislation.
Also seemingly unheeded was a document authored by William C. Bartlett,
Law & Government Division of the Library of Parliament dated September
1994 entitled Arguments Against Further Gun Control Measures at this
Time. The document states that public safety will only be further
endangered if law enforcement authorities are forced to spread their
resources too thin in order to enforce new firearm laws and administer
new regulatory program involving firearms. The report concluded by
stating, "Despite shrinking resources, we must attempt to deal with the
direct threat of violent crime, and when it comes to firearms the most
direct and immediate threat is surely posed by gun smuggling. It is
difficult to see how this threat can be significantly countered if
attention and resources are diverted to additional regulatory control
measures within Canada."
Bill C-68 is very vague and open to different interpretations. This is
unacceptable in law as it results in gray areas subject to legal
challenges. Such is the case with our current legislation which led a
Provincial judge to comment that it was "one of the most horrifying
examples of bad draftmanship <sic> that I have had the misfortune to
consider", "so convoluted that even those responsible for enforcing the
provisions are apparently unable to understand it" and "a challenge to
one's sense of logic". (Judge P.C.J. Gordon in Regina v. Neil (1985)
Kamloops Registry No. 25175) Numerous firearm cases are currently
before the courts seeking the clear meaning of the law. Different
courts have provided different interpretations. Laws should be clear
and easy to follow and not subject to various interpretations by
different individuals, law enforcement agencies and courts.
Within C-68 there is the potential to tax firearm use out of existence,
FA Sec 110 as it pertains to regulations regarding ranges can be
examined. The governor in council can regulate fees, taxes and
excessive standards that would contribute to the closure of many
shooting facilities. With ranges closed, firearm owners would not be
able to shoot their handguns and, according to C-68, would have to
surrender them to the state with no compensation. Also the governor in
council can dictate what type of shooting activities may occur on
certain ranges. Potentially, a common type of shooting sport with a
particular firearm could be deemed illegitimate on a whim. The governor
in council can determine what is and what is not a legitimate shooting
activity. Under these circumstances, all shooting sports are in
jeopardy.
C-68 allows for the prohibition of any firearm by regulation. Mr. Rock
has made it clear he intends to use this provision to ban common hunting
rifles. To be effective in prohibiting firearms, registration must be
in place so they can be located, as has been done in the past and is
presently occurring. In 1992 many previously registered firearms were
prohibited and confiscated. In that same year a number of other
firearms were registered and in 1995 Allan Rock prohibited them.
The government is continuing the pattern of defining what are legitimate
firearms and shooting sports in order to justify further prohibition.
In 1992 a number of rifles were deemed restricted and they no longer
could be used for hunting. They had been used for hunting for many
years prior but because of a new law, such was no longer legal. Now
they are being prohibited based on the rationale that they cannot be
used for hunting therefore they have no legitimate use. The legislation
allows the government to invalidate shooting sports then subsequently
state there exists no reason to own the associated firearms.
Democratic Subversion
The New Brunswick Firearms Alliance contends that Justice Minister Allan
Rock has deliberately deceived the public by not divulging the true
agenda of his legislation. He maintains the rationale for C-68 is
public safety. His performance with respect to other issues contradicts
this philosophy. If public safety were of paramount concern, the
millions of dollars earmarked for registration would save more lives if
it were placed into the health care system or towards research into
breast cancer, etc. To further illustrate Mr. Rock's lack of concern
over public safety, he failed to support a fellow Liberal's private
member's bill to eliminate Judicial Review. Judicial Review permits
convicted murderers to be released to society earlier. As well, Mr.
Rock did not support a rape victim who wanted her assailant to be tested
for HIV. Mr. Rock was of the opinion such would violate the rapists
rights.
Secondly, the Justice Minister has manipulated Canadians into support
for universal registration via flawed arguments. Mr. Rock states
registration would assist police in their investigations. There is no
factual evidence to support this claim. Police in the UK, New Zealand
and Australia have had registration for years and none of these
countries have found the system to be effective. Registration diverts
police resources away from more important duties. New Zealand and parts
of Australia have terminated registration programs on the advice of
police.
The Justice Minister further contends registration would provide police
a means to know if a suspect possessed a firearm at his /her residence.
Such will not occur because criminals will not register their firearms,
others will not know to register, and many will not comply out of fear
of confiscation. To illustrate, Bill C-17 required the registration of
a number of semi-automatic rifles. Current RCMP estimates are that less
than 10% were registered. (Gun Control is not Crime Control, Gary
Mauser, Fraser Institute) The police would be unable to have confidence
in registration records to indicate if a person possessed firearms. As
well, courts would not know if prohibition orders were complete.
The Justice Minister's final reason for registration is that it would
encourage owners to store their firearms more safely and therefore
reduce crime. Safe storage has existed under law since Bill C-17 and to
gain further compliance education is the key, not the threat of
additional punishment.
The Justice Minister's arrogant disregard for Canadian law is
exemplified by his attempts to influence the courts with his comments on
the Simmermon case currently before the supreme court. ("the judgment
that has been referred to is under appeal because the federal government
believes at first instance that it was simply wrong..." Hansard March
27, 1995, page 11065) Such statements are not only unethical, but are
clearly a conflict of interest. This blatant attitude of being above
the law is prevalent in C-68 as many aspects contravene the Canadian
Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The dictatorial approach by the Liberal
government is evident by the very heavy handed sanctioning of the three
Liberal backbenchers who represented the views of their constituents by
voting against C-68 during second reading.
Mr. Rock's tactics in promoting his legislation are very questionable.
He has attempted to keep the public uninformed regarding existing
firearm regulations. Mr. Rock stated, Apr. 24, 1995, that he does not
want a Canada where a citizen felt compelled to carry a revolver in his
or her pocket whenever they went to the grocery store. It is not
legally possible to do this in Canada under the current legislation, nor
is it in many of the large US cities he likes to use as examples of the
need for more gun control.
Failure to inform the public is also demonstrated by the fact that
copies of Bill C-68 were not readily available. As well, the invoking
of closure on parliamentary debate during second reading suggested Mr.
Rock did not want information regarding the deficiencies of his
legislation made public.
The Justice Minister has also shamelessly exploited the Oklahoma tragedy
by suggesting his legislation would contribute to ensuring such an act
would not occur in Canada. The Oklahoma bombing and Bill C-68 have no
relationship and it is slanderous to equate Canadian firearm owners with
terrorists.
Mr. Rock also claims support for his bill based upon polls of
questionable validity. If the government is so impressed with surveys,
then capital punishment would be immediately instated, Members of
Parliament would have to take a pay cut, and personal income tax would
be reduced. This demonstrates that the government only recognizes polls
that reflect well politically.
Conclusion
Bill C-68 is not about public safety, that is why the Liberal government
has been employing the deception cited above. The true rational of the
legislation is to remove legally owned firearms from Canadian firearm
owners and collectors via the following:
1) Registration - to determine the location of all firearms so they
can be confiscated;
2) Deeming shooting sports illegitimate and therefore limiting the
reasons for owning a firearm;
3) Administrative hurdles and taxes/fees to discourage firearm
ownership and to reduce participation in recreational shooting
activities.
Bill C-68 is simply enabling legislation to implement the theft of
private property without the scrutiny of parliament. At the onset of
this debate, Mr. Rock made his agenda perfectly clear with the
statement: "I came to Ottawa with the firm belief that the only people
in this country who should have guns are police officers and soldiers."
(Maclean's, Taking Aim on Guns", April 25, 1994, page 12.)