What's wrong with Bill C-68

		Bill C-68 is not about crime control.
                                   Bill C-68 is about gun prohibition.

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. These include all 25 and 32 calibre
firearms including those key to Canada's olympic shooting program.
What is so specially dangerous about firearms of this calibre? These
include all firearms with barrels shorter than 105 mm. These include
almost all of the World War I and II relics and Police firearms. What's
magic about 105 mm? The choices of 25 and 32 calibre and 105 mm
look very arbitrary; just one step on a continuum toward total
prohibition of all privately owned firearms in Canada. May we be
permitted the cynical observation that it was expected that this
prohibition would only affect a sufficiently few owners of firearms as
not to provoke an organized reaction.   

Bill C-68 is about the elimination of the right to be protected from
unreasonable search and seizure (Sections 98 through 101).  

Bill C-68 s. 99 authorizes any person "designated by the provincial
Minister" (s.  98) to  "enter and inspect any place" where he "believes...
there is a firearm, ... ammunition,... or a record (of) any of those
things".
While inside, he may "open any container...", "examine any firearm and
. any other thing and take samples (which he may dispose of in any
manner that he considers appropriate)", "conduct any tests or
analyses", and "require any person to produce... any records."
He may also "use any data processing system at the place to examine
any data... available to the system , reproduce any record... and remove
(it)", and "(copy) any record... or other document."
True, s. 101 says he may not enter a dwelling house -- unless he gets a
warrant under s. 99's terms. That means that he must tell a justice that
he "believes... there is a firearm,... ammunition,..  or a record (of) any
of those things" in the private home he wants to ransack, and that he
has some reason to believe that the owner objects to his idea.

Note that he does NOT have to swear that he knows or even suspects
that any crime is involved. The sections authorize him to get a warrant
and ransack the home of any person in Canada who has or is suspected
of having a firearm, a cartridge, or a record of either.

Bill C-68 s. 100 then provides that "The owner or person in charge of
a place that is inspected (with or without a warrant) and every person
found in the place shall give" the inspecting person (a) "all reasonable
assistance to enable him or her to... exercise any power. conferred by
section 99: and (b)  provide the inspecting person "with any 
information  relevant to the enforcement of this Act or the regulations
(made under s.  110 (a) to (v) inclusive) or Part III of the Criminal Code
that he or she may reasonably require."

Whatever happened to a Canadian's right to remain silent until
competent legal advice is available?
What happened to our Charter right to freedom from unreasonable
search or seizure?

Bill C-68 is about making criminals out of ordinary Canadians
(Sections 102 through 109).

Bill C-68 s. 105. Every person who... contravenes a regulation made (by
Order in Council (OIC)) under paragraph 110 (d), (e), (f), (g), (i), (j),
(l), (m) or (n) the contravention of which has been made an offence
under paragraph 110 (o) (by OIC)
(a) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to a term of
imprisonment not exceeding two years...
s. 110 (o) "offences" include any violation of a regulation about target
shooting clubs, gun collections, gun shows, anything to do with
handguns or other  "restricted" firearms, keeping of records about
firearms, or keeping business records.
In order to know what "offences" have been created by s. 110 (o) you
must subscribe to the Canada Gazette and read it faithfully. If you
don't, you may miss one and go to prison for two years.

These penalties for red tape offenses involving firearms are quite
comparable to those for real crimes of burglary rape and homicide. The
objective expressed in Bill C-68 is therefore not to dissuade people from
these crimes but to dissuade people from the possession of firearms.
Given the equal application of these laws to both criminals and victims
they will obviously be more effective on the citizen of good character
than on the criminal. The obvious consequence as the evidence of
Britain shows is that criminal activity will be increased not decreased. 

Bill C-68 is about creating guilt by association.

page 82
  111. (1) A peace officer, firearms officer or chief firearms officer may
apply to a provincial court judge for an order prohibiting a person
from possessing any firearm, crossbow, prohibited weapon, restricted
weapon, prohibited  device,  ammunition,  prohibited  ammunition  or
explosive  substance,  or  all such  things, where the peace officer,
firearms officer or chief firearms officer  believes on reasonable grounds

  (b) that another person who is prohibited by any order made under
this Act or any other Act of Parliament from possessing any such thing
cohabits with, or is an associate of, the person against whom the order
is sought would or might have access to any such thing that is in the
possession of the person against whom the order is sought.


Bill C-68 is about the further regulation and arbitrary prohibition of
legally owned private property without even the necessity of returning
to parliament to obtain the authority so to do.  (Sections 110 through
112).

Bill C-68 s. 111 requires each regulation from the s.  110 list to be "laid
before each House of Parliament... for 30 sitting days."

s. 112 then says that FA 111 does not have to be complied with:
(1) if a regulation previously made is being changed, no matter how
severely it is changed, or even if it is reversed:
(2) if the "Minister is of the opinion that the changes (are) immaterial
or insubstantial), "
(3) if it is made under s  110 (i), e), (m), (n), (o), (q), (r). or (s), where the
"Minister is of the opinion that (the matter is) urgent:"
(4) if it is made under s.  110 (v), where the Minister wants to change a
voiding, eligibility, critical or other date affecting any provision. This
provision allows sudden changes of status for large numbers of firearms
and their confiscation,
(5) "For greater certainty, a regulation may be made under Part III of
the Criminal Code without being laid before either House of
Parliament. "
The above exceptions seem to effectively eliminate Parliament's role,
including individual MP scrutiny, and allow the firearms control
system to operate almost as a Ministerial dictatorship.

The penalties for the criminal use of firearms

It is indeed curious that special penalties are specified for the criminal
use of firearms or immitation firearms that are not specified for crimes
using other weapons in general. Why should someone who uses a
baseball bat to beat someone to death be subjected to less prison
sentence than one who uses an imitaation firearm to do the same deed.
If these penalties applied to all use of weapons they would make some
sense.Failure to do so throws the real reason for Bill C-68 into high
relief. Bill C-68 is not really about reducing crime in Canada. Mr Rock
does not care about crimes committed with baseball bats and crowbars
and axes and all other weapons except firearms.
Bill C-68 is about the prohibition of firearms and whether that reduces
crime or makes it worse is completely beside the point.


                GUN CONTROL IS NOT CRIME CONTROL

               THE NEW BRUNSWICK FIREARMS ALLIANCE!