National Coalition of Provincial and Territorial Wildlife Federations Presentation to: the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs Bill C-68 September 19, 1995. Executive Summary The National Coalition of Provincial and Territorial Wildlife Federations consists of all of Canada's provincial and territorial wildlife federations and associations. We represent over 500,000 members across Canada. We request that Bill C-68 be defeated by the Senate because there is no rational connection between those provisions of legislation that seek to further amend the existing controls on the noncriminal aspects of firearms ownership, possession, and use; and aspirations for a reduction in the criminal use of firearms in Canadian society and improvements in public safety. If the Senate is unwilling to defeat the Bill, it requires a major set of amendments to remove all those sections aimed at law-abiding firearms owners. Only those sections aimed at the criminal use of firearms would remain. This is clearly necessary because of all the flaws we have identified in many places throughout the Bill dealing with such things as: The proposed mandatory licencing provisions are an unjustified, expensive, ineffectual intrusion into Canadian's lives. The proposed universal firearms registration system will cause a profound reduction in public safety. Costs related to the mandatory licenses and universal registration will be between $750 Million and 1.4 Billion dollars over the next 5 years, not the $85 Million claimed by the Justice Minister. A computer based registration system of all firearms cannot be secure from tampering and hacking. The legislation proposes to prohibit firearms whose ownership and possession has already been restricted, and therefore subject to registration and special licencing requirements, in Canada for over 50 years. The legislation proposes to classify inert, unfirable replica firearms as "prohibited devices," and prevent their legitimate possession, ownership and use by Canadians. The legislation would enable a single individual to arbitrarily prohibit any firearm, including those firearms that are commonly used in hunting or other legitimate sporting activities. The legislation enables the complete delegation of the ability to create substantive law for which Criminal Code penalties would be created. And for all the other reasons described in the attached brief. The members of the N.C.P.T.W.F., and indeed all Canadians, expect that the federal government will create laws and regulations only where there is clear evidence that a problem exists, government intervention is justified, regulation is the best alternative, and the benefits exceed the costs. There is no evidence that a problem exists with the ownership, possession and use of firearms by law- abiding Canadians. The federal government has not justified its intervention. Further laws and regulations on law-abiding firearms owners have not been shown to be the best alternative in reducing criminal firearm use. The potential costs of the proposals have no relation to any benefits of improvements in public safety. TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1 Need For Additional Gun Control? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1 Consultation and Development of Federal Firearms Policy. . . . . . . .5 Bill C-68: the Firearms Act . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7 Mandatory Licencing of Firearms Owners . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7 Universal Registration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9 Benefits of Registration?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Prohibition of Currently Restricted and Registered Rifles . . . . . 12 Additional Handgun Prohibitions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Prohibition By Association . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Other Prohibitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Replica Firearms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Import and Export by Individuals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Gun Collectors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Powers of Inspection Granted to Inspectors . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Regulation of Shooting Ranges. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Safety Training. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Governing by Order-in-Council. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 Summary and Recommendations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 Endnotes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 List of Appendices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 Introduction: Representing over 500,000 members across Canada, the National Coalition of Provincial and Territorial Wildlife Federations (N.C.P.T.W.F.) consists of all of Canada's provincial and territorial wildlife federations or associations: a unified voice of conservation minded anglers and hunters. All our organizations are committed to and advocate the continued ownership, safe storage and use of all now legally possessed firearms by Canadian citizens, including hunting rifles, shotguns, handguns, other restricted and registered firearms, and grandfathered prohibited firearms. Membership in our organizations is voluntary, and open to anybody who participates in the conservation and wise use of Canada's natural resources and supports sporting activities related to these natural resources such as hunting along with other shooting sports. Members join our organizations individually, or through organized local member clubs. They come from both urban and rural areas, have varying economic status, different cultural backgrounds, but overwhelmingly, own and use firearms legally and responsibly. Individual members of the organizations that make up the National Coalition come from both urban and rural areas of the country, in varying percentages. In the more rural provinces, the vast majority of our membership base is, understandably from the more rural areas of the province. In the provinces with large urban centres, the urban-rural membership division moves closer to 50/50: indicating a strong dedicated interest in conservation and the shooting sports among urbanites. There is not an urban centre in Canada without strong, vocal, informed and active members and affiliated clubs. Established in the summer of 1994 out of concern for Mr. Rock's apparent intent to target law-abiding citizens with even more restrictions and unnecessary laws, the National Coalition developed and presented its policy statement based on the preceding paragraphs to Members of Parliament, Members of Provincial Legislative Assemblies, and to the public. On November 30, 1994, the Federal Minister of Justice, Allan Rock, announced the government's proposals for changes to the federal firearms control regime. The proposals would change virtually all aspects of Canada's firearms control system, including those aspects amended as recently as 1991, and implemented as late as 1993. Those aspects of the proposals which target law-abiding firearms owners are a breach of a Liberal Party election promise that expressly stated: "We will ensure the criminal use of firearms is penalized but legitimate users are not." Need For Additional Gun Control? It is the position and submission of the N.C.P.T.W.F. that further amendments to Canada's firearms control regime cannot be justified on the basis of strong directives from an informed society, or failure of our existing controls, or a pressing need to address rising crime rates, or a reasonable expectation of cost effectiveness, or any expectation that toughening up the controls on Canada's legal firearms owners will have any impact on crime. Canadians, those who own firearms and those who do not, are increasingly questioning the basis for the proposed changes in the legislation affecting the ownership, possession and use of firearms by the non-criminal majority of Canadian firearms owners, particularly as more Canadians become aware of the content of the draft legislation, and the laws and regulations already in place. Although Mr. Rock has claimed wide-spread support for the proposed amendments, polls of uninformed people are no basis to govern. When asked, virtually everybody will say we need "gun control" or "better gun control" simply because there are criminals perpetrating crimes in Canadian society with firearms. Those who do not own firearms or have not been exposed to the non-criminal aspects of responsible firearm ownership have very little conception of what actually is involved in legally obtaining and using even a non-restricted firearm in Canada. This government, along with previous governments, has done a dismally poor job in public education of Canada's firearms laws and the polls relied upon by the Minister of Justice to indicate support for his proposals show only the degree of ignorance of Canadian society. A national public opinion survey recently conducted by Canadian Facts, Inc., for Simon Fraser University (S.F.U.) reveals that Canadians know little about existing gun control laws and that their support for firearm registration weakens as they become more knowledgeable about the issue. This knowledge includes the "hidden costs" associated with firearms registration. The S.F.U. study also reinforces the findings of other surveys indicating that Canadians place a very low priority on stricter gun control laws as a method of combating violent crime. Only eight per cent of Canadians describe themselves as "very familiar" with current gun laws, while 27 per cent stated they were "not at all familiar." A number of "skill testing questions" verified this lack of knowledge. Only three per cent knew the maximum penalty for having an unregistered handgun is five years. Less than half (47 per cent) knew that a police permit is required to purchase a rifle or shotgun. Only 21 per cent knew about the existence of a mandatory government firearms safety course, just two per cent knew that letters of reference were required from gun purchasers or that gun shops must keep a record of their names and addresses. Canada's gun control program seeks to reduce accidental, intentional and criminal misuse of firearms, to keep firearms out of the hands of those who should not have them and to encourage and ensure responsible firearm ownership and use. Such aims and objects are fully supported by the N.C.P.T.W.F., as they are by all responsible firearms owners across Canada. The current program however is complex and expensive, and may not be yielding an appropriate return with respect to measurable decreases in firearms crime or other firearm misuse, along with measurable increases in public safety. In 1993, the Auditor-General of Canada's Report to the House of Commons contained a detailed review of our gun control program and found that the gun control regime instituted in 1978 has never been adequately evaluated, either prior to or subsequent to the amendments contained in Bill C-17. The Auditor-General believes it "essential that the Department of Justice evaluate the effectiveness of the program again. Members of Parliament and the Canadian public need to know whether the means the government has chosen to achieve the program's objectives are working". Although written in 1993, these comments are still valid. The Department of Justice still has not publicly reviewed the effectiveness of Canada's firearm control regime. It therefore has no reasonable basis for any further restrictions. Included in the published Auditor-General's Report is the response from the Department of Justice which states in part (in defence of the changes that were implemented as a result of Bill C-17 without adequate justification), "... the legislation and regulations were driven by clear public interest considerations, which needed to be acted upon despite the absence of precise data." It appears that this government is attempting to proceed, in Bill C-68 with additional amendments to legislation and regulation to again cater to an uninformed public with total disregard for the precise data that does exist. The Department of Justice does know that Canadian women are as likely as men to be victims of violent crime; however, weapons are used against 31% of men compared to 19% of women. The most common weapons used in violent crime are "other" weapons (such as motor vehicles, fire, poison, hot water), followed by sharp instruments. Firearms of all types are used in only 5% of all violent crimes in Canada; handguns less than 2.5%. Restrictive gun control in Canada has had no perceptible impact on violent crime since its introduction in 1978. The American states bordering Canada have homicide rates similar to ours despite easier legal access to firearms and liberal handgun laws. There is absolutely no evidence which supports the hypothesis that the types and availability of firearms are directly related to increasing violent crime rates or the criminal use of firearms. In the absence of firearms, criminals switch to other weapons or other sources of weapons. The Department of Justice has not been able to establish that increased gun controls or laws in any city, state, or nation has ever reduced violent crime or slowed its rate or growth compared to similar jurisdictions without such laws. Statistical reporting by the Canada Centre for Justice Statistics shows that two-thirds of all Canadian homicides do not involve firearms. Stabbing, beating, and strangulation account for the majority. In 1991, two-thirds of all accused murderers had prior criminal records, of which 69% were prohibited from acquiring or possessing firearms due to previous violent offenses. Firearm homicides typically represent less than 2% of all unnatural deaths in Canada and between 1961-1990, and less than 1% of all homicides involved firearms legally registered in Canada. Alcohol and drug use was evident in over 50% of all homicides in 1993. Historically, alcohol abuse has been estimated as the most important contributing factor in two of every three homicides in Canada, and accordingly, efforts to reduce homicide should concentrate on reducing alcohol abuse. Domestic homicides by firearm comprise only 11% of all the homicides in Canada. These "crimes of passion" are almost always preceded by a long history of domestic turmoil: in 1991, 44% of all domestic murders had a previous record of violent conflict, committed between the hours of 10 p.m. and 2 a.m., with any object close at hand and by persons under the influence of drugs or alcohol. Existing laws, properly enforced, should be used to prevent this 11%. They do already exist. Between 1974-1992, over 60% of all domestic homicides in Canada involved weapons other than firearms, with alcohol and drug abuse a relevant factor in 64%. Between 1974-1987, the use of firearms in domestic homicide fluctuated with "gun controls" having no effect on the level of domestic homicide in Canada. The Department of Justice has already studied and reported on police responses to domestic disputes and the involvement of firearms. Clearly, homes with a long history of violent conflict are known to police agencies. Under the existing law, a police officer is allowed to immediately seize any firearm from such homes, without prior judicial approval. The study documents that police are typically already in possession of information relating to the presence of firearms in the home, and where there is no prior knowledge of firearm presence, police overwhelming inquire and are prepared to immediately seize any firearms. The Minister of Justice has often been heard citing the statistic that a Canadian women is killed every five or six days by firearm. This is a shockingly true statement but it needs to be framed with the equally shocking statistic that a Canadian woman is killed every 2 days by some other, i.e. non-firearm, means, and that every 2 hours a Canadian woman dies of breast cancer. These numbers are reflective of the total number of women in Canada: 13,840,000 according to the 1991 Census. Reducing homicides in domestic situations can not be rationally cited as a reason for proceeding with Bill C-68, not without substantial proof that public and private moneys are better spent on firearms control than directly combatting domestic violence in general. Similarly, the government must clearly establish that more women's lives would be saved by investing time, money and resources in gun control rather than host of other much more frequent causes of death. Between 1976-1992, two-thirds of all robberies in Canada involved weapons other than firearms. The armed robbery rate for the period 1974 (prior to restrictive gun control legislation) and 1988 remained the same and any decrease in robberies involving firearms has been counterbalanced by the increasing use of physical force, knives and blunt instruments. These weapons require close personal contact, and victim injury is much more frequent and substantially more serious when armed robbery does not involve a firearm. Between 1969-1991, suicides accounted for 75% of all gun-related deaths in Canada; however, over two-thirds of all suicides are committed by methods other than firearms. Aboriginals are noted as being especially likely to select firearms as a suicide method in a recent research report. Aboriginals, however, are the single identifiable group that are most likely to be exempted from the majority of the provisions contained in Bill C-68: exemptions that are to be decided upon by the Minister of Justice, not Parliament. That same government report also notes that firearm suicide attempts are only marginally more successful than other methods such as hanging, carbon monoxide poisoning and drowning: all freely available methods. The same study notes that restrictive gun control has had no effect on the suicide rate. The suicide rate in Canada remains higher than the United States, but is still substantially lower than the majority of European countries which have extremely restrictive gun control laws. The government should look to the causes of suicide and not the implement used, if it is serious about reducing suicides in Canada. The accidental injury rate by firearm declined 27% between 1982-1991, with the accidental death rate by firearm dropping 80% between 1966-1991. Alcohol abuse is a significant contributing factor in 50% of all gun "accidents" and suicides. Section 85 of the Criminal Code of Canada currently allows for mandatory sentences of one year for the use of a firearm in crime. However, a Department of Justice report clearly establishes that a half to two-thirds of Section 85 charges are withdrawn, discharged, stayed or dismissed; and that those Section 85 charges that do result in convictions most often lead to sentences that really do not contain any incremental imprisonment. Any deterrent effect of the present provisions of the Criminal Code is lost if charges are not laid in the first place, or not prosecuted, or do not result in additional imprisonment where charges are laid and prosecuted. The current laws need to be enforced. Faced with this information, Canadians are becoming increasingly aware that there is no basis, justification or need for further amendments to Canada's firearms control regime. This is amply demonstrated by the recent Maclean's/CTV poll that found that only 5% of Canadians believe that any perceived increase in violent crime was caused by an absence of stronger gun control laws. The Department of Justice and the Government of Canada is failing to take responsible action against the root causes of crime in today's society and instead, are proposing largely ineffectual amendments that will do little to address crime and to make Canada a safer place. The Senate of Canada has the opportunity to reverse this process by refraining from approving this legislation as passed by the House of Commons. Although in the past the Senate has rarely refused to approve legislation duly passed by the Lower House, never before has such sweeping yet completely misguided legislation been passed by the House of Commons, and the Senate is truly justified in exercising its privilege and responsibility. Consultation and Development of Federal Firearms Policy The N.C.P.T.W.F. believes that the government was not given the mandate to proceed with the proposed changes when it was elected, nor has it seriously consulted with Canadian firearms owners while developing its Action Plan and subsequent draft legislation. The Liberal Party's pre-election platform, as detailed in the "Red Book" stated: "In order to combat crime, a Liberal government will work in a broad range of areas. To strengthen gun control, a Liberal government, will among other measures, counter the illegal importation of banned and restricted firearms into Canada and prohibit anyone convicted of an indictable offence from owning or possessing a gun." A Liberal Party background policy document from 1993 states: "The Liberal Party believes it is vital that we maintain the type of restrictions on firearms which have been in place in Canada for close to a century. While supporting the government's most recent reform of gun control legislation, the Liberal Party fought hard for amendments which would have made this legislation more effective and stronger." ...and makes the following recommendations: 1. Those convicted of an indictable drug related offence should be prohibited from owning or possessing a firearm. The Liberal Party moved such an amendment during the debate on Bill C-17 (Gun Control). 2. Anyone convicted of stalking type offences and/or any violent act against a person would be prohibited from owning or possessing a firearm. At the urging of Liberals, such a provision was included in the governments's recently passed anti-stalking legislation. 3. The federal government would work with the provinces to establish a system of mandatory training so that in the future, no one is issued a firearm without proper training. 4. Make it mandatory to report all lost or stolen weapons. 5. Take measures to counter the illegal importation of banned and restricted guns into Canada." On September 29, 1993, the National Liberal Caucus, through its Research Bureau, gave the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters and Liberal candidates for election in Ontario a statement promising: "We will ensure the criminal use of firearms is penalized but legitimate users are not." There is absolutely no indication in the Liberal pre-election platform that the government would proceed with the sweeping changes to Canada's firearm control system as contained in Bill C-68. There is no mandate given to this government to proceed and in fact, the changes to Canada's firearm control regime contained in Bill C-68 actually break the Liberal promise not to penalize legitimate firearms owners and users. The government's document, Background Information on Firearms Control, was released in November of 1994, along with the Governments Action Plan on Firearms Control. The background paper lists groups that the Minister of Justice has met with on the issue of firearms control. The groups listed that are affiliated with the N.C.P.T.W.F. through its member organizations do not support or condone the content of the Government's Action Plan, and remain opposed to the legislation. With the tabling of Bill C-68, it is abundantly clear to those firearms owners who had previously met with the Minister of Justice during the consultations that the Minister and the Department of Justice was completely unwilling to alter his preconceived notions and proposals to address the legitimate concerns of responsible firearms owners. The N.C.P.T.W.F. maintains that the government has no mandate from the Canadian people to implement the proposed amendments nor did it seriously consider and address the legitimate concerns of firearms owners while developing the Action Plan and subsequent legislation. The Minister did not even meet with representatives from at least one province. This Committee, as representative of the Senate of Canada, is respectively requested to seriously consider the consequences to the democratic social fabric of this country, as a government proceeds with ill-considered legislation that was seemingly developed in a vacuum of common sense and contrary to any rational conception of cause and effect, and without rational connection. Bill C-68: the Firearms Act Bill C-68, as passed by the House of Commons on June 13, 1995 makes sweeping changes to Canada's firearms control regime. The legislation institutes a mandatory licencing system of all firearms owners, requires the registration of all firearms, arbitrarily classifies hundreds of thousands of firearms responsibly owned by Canadians from coast to coast as prohibited, grants sweeping powers of inspection to police, and makes a host of seemingly minor amendments that will have profound adverse effects on responsible Canadian firearms owners. Beyond this, this legislation effectively ensures that this will be the final opportunity that the Senate of Canada has to review Canada's firearms controls because the legislation enables the complete control of virtually all aspects of Canada's firearms controls through regulation rather than legislation. It is the position of the N.C.P.T.W.F. that all the changes Bill C-68 makes to Canada's firearms controls as they relate to what is now non-criminal ownership, possession, use, transfer, and storage are unwarranted and completely unnecessary. The changes do not meet any sort of rational connection test to any potential improvement of public safety and are not a demonstrable, justifiable limitation of rights and privileges rightfully enjoyed in a free and democratic society. The detailed concerns with the various objectionable amendments to the Criminal Code proposed in Bill C-68 that the N.C.P.T.W.F. wishes to bring to the attention of the Senate follows. Mandatory Licencing of Firearms Owners The proposed mandatory licencing provisions are an unjustified, expensive, ineffectual intrusion into Canadian's lives. The legislation enables the limitation of firearms possession solely to those who have licences, registration certificates and authorizations, notwithstanding the fact that the majority of firearms presently possessed by Canadians are possessed legally and responsibly, but without government permits, like any number of other items of private property. In Canada, we licence people to drive cars, trucks, and motorcycles, but we do not require people to be licenced maintain their rights of possession of these articles of private property, nor is failure to maintain a licence to use these articles a criminal offence or cause for loss of rights of possession. The overwhelming majority of legal, legitimate, active use of firearms already occurs under government licencing arrangements: either federal or provincial hunting licences, or permits to transport restricted firearms from their place of storage to government approved ranges for target shooting. The establishment of such a government licencing system is an unparalleled intrusion into the private lives of Canadians: one that should not be allowed. There is neither the expectation of improvement of public safety or the knowledge that this is the best way to expend resources. These deficiencies have been widely noted and documented by individuals, researchers, academics, groups, organizations, and lower levels of Canadian governments. Despite requests for a logical, rationally defensible justification for imposing a mandatory licencing system, the Minister and Department of Justice can not provide this information to Canadians, to Parliament or to this Committee. The current Criminal Code allows all Canadians the opportunity to possess firearms that they have legally acquired, in perpetuity unless they pose a safety risk to themselves or to others. The current provisions of the Code already allow for the immediate confiscation of firearms from those that pose a risk, and the establishment of prohibition orders for those who pose a continuing safety risk. To force legitimate, responsible firearms owners into a licencing regime that must be followed to maintain legal possession of firearms is costly, unnecessary and wrong; and completely contrary to anything done for any other item of private property. The N.C.P.T.W.F. would agree that individuals who have criminal convictions for violent offences or who have exhibited a history of violent behaviour should not be permitted to possess firearms, but the existing provisions of the Criminal Code already accomplish this through prohibition orders. Enforcement of prohibition orders will still be required regardless of the presence of a licencing system, nor will enforcement be easier. The imposition of the licence requirement is an unnecessary layer of law, bureaucracy, and red tape that will cost Canadians millions of dollars, and will continue to cost Canadians long into the future. This Standing Senate Committee should not allow this change, requiring mandatory licencing of all firearms owners. It is a waste of time, money, and effort that will not produce measurable improvement in public safety. The N.C.P.T.W.F. remains opposed to the establishment of a mandatory firearms owner licencing system. Beyond these considerations, the National Coalition requests that the Standing Senate Committee seriously and consciously consider the fundamental changes that this legislation would bring about in Canadian society. Never before have responsible Canadians faced the possibility of having to justify their need or desire for any other item, on an ongoing basis, just to be allowed to retain ownership. These concerns go far beyond the issue at hand, and strike close to the centre of Canadian concepts of personal choice, rights and freedoms. We, as responsible Canadians, who come from every walk of life, from every region of this county, are not prepared to allow this change to happen. "... in a free society, we have never had to justify= owning guns. I do not "need" a car that can go three times the speed limit. I do not "need" a powerboat. There are social costs and security costs attached to both these items,..." Universal Registration Section 13 of Bill C-68 states that one must be licenced to possess a type of firearm before a registration certificate can be issued for a firearm of that type. This section is coupled with the proposed amendment to the Criminal Code Section 91, which makes it an offence to possess any firearm without both a licence to possess that type of firearm and a registration certificate for the particular firearm. Punishment upon conviction can be up to 5 years imprisonment. Possession of an unregistered firearm by an unlicenced individual who knows such possession is against the law can result in imprisonment for up to 10 years upon conviction for a first offence. Section 14 of Bill C-68 requires unique serial numbers for each firearm that is registered. Coupled together, the user licencing system and the proposed registration of all firearms held by Canadians will cost hundreds of millions of dollars, either to taxpayers in general through funding from federal general revenue, or from those taxpayers who are forced by law to register themselves and each of their firearms. Simon Fraser University Professor Gary Mauser has completed a Cost / Benefit Analysis of the licencing system and universal firearms registry. Mauser reports that in direct costs, these two will cost Canadian Taxpayers, over and above the fees levied on users of the licence and registry systems, between $750 Million and $1.4 Billion over the next five years. The Minister of Justice can not accurately forecast the potential cost of the proposed registration system, largely because no one knows the actual number of now unregistered, non-restricted firearms currently held by Canadians. The Minister of Justice is proposing to institute and establish a plastic card type registration and licencing system supported by a network of computer systems to operate and maintain the national database, at unknown cost. The federal Department of Justice does know, however, that in 1992, it cost about $82 to register each restricted firearm under the existing system and $5.4 million was spent registering only 65,812 restricted firearms. It seems highly improbable that any new firearms registration system, requiring capital outlays in new computer processing equipment, and staff and officer training of R.C.M.P., Provincial Ministries of Solicitor General, Provincial Police, Regional Police, and Municipal Police, etc., could process a permit for much less. Currently, there are over 1.2 million firearms registered in Canada that are recorded in the Restricted Weapons Registration System, maintained by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (R.C.M.P.). Bill C-68 would require the registration of an additional 5 to 20 million firearms at immense government cost, assuredly more than the $85 million forecast by the Minister of Justice. The proposed universal registration and licencing system will also have cost implications to every police service that is involved with firearms control: provincial, regional, and local police services. A mandatory licencing system and universal firearms registration will not be able to function without massive increases in staffing levels. The proposed licencing and registration will require the hiring of more police officers along with clerical support unless it is the intention of the Government to subject Canadians across the country with substantially reduced crime fighting and prevention capability. Police can not be effective fighting crime and catching criminals if they are forced to spend their time and resources completing meaningless paperwork about law-abiding Canadians who have never done anything criminal and never will. The proposed registration system will also have costs to each firearm owner established by regulation but for some firearms owners costs will be much higher. This stems from the requirement that all firearms must bear a unique serial number. Some manufacturers used the same serial numbers year after year, while historic firearms and replicas rarely carry any serial numbers at all. Owners of these firearms presumably will be forced to have an arbitrary serial number engraved as some direct cost, and for the owners of historic collections, at great loss of value in their firearm collection. The firearm registry system is proposed to be accessible for updates from direct entry computer terminals located across Canada. Any computer-based record system that allows access from several locations can not be secure from hacking or tampering, and therefore the confidentiality of the system records can not be assured. Serious breaches in computer security are common today and are well reported in the media. Presently, owners of non-restricted firearms across the country feel reasonably secure that they will not be specifically targeted by criminals seeking firearms, simply because their ownership is not recorded and is not accessible. An computer listing of all the firearms in Canada, along with their location, will end this. Similarly, the non-firearm owning public that are indirectly receiving benefits stand to lose out as well. Presently, criminals when they choose to burglarize a home, face roughly a 25% chance that the homeowner possesses a firearm. An computer listing of all the firearms in Canada, along with their location, will allow criminals to pick and choose which house to break into, with absolute assurance that registered firearms are not present. This alone is reason enough not to proceed with a universal firearms registry and licencing system. And, while Mr. Rock suggests that computer systems should be secure, the appended news clippings clearly prove otherwise. Benefits of Registration? In The Government's Action Plan on Firearms Control, a number of hoped for benefits are linked to the proposed system of universal firearms registration. A universal registry system is hoped to: deter and control theft, diversion and smuggling of firearms; ensure compliance with transfer and safe storage requirements; assist in police investigations; better prepare police as they respond to domestic disputes; enable police to enforce prohibitions orders by ensuring surrender of all firearms owned by the individual; assist in international small-arms control; and gather statistical information about firearms owners. In all but the last, the supporting arguments are specious and worthless. Handguns have been registered and their legal possession strictly controlled in Canada since 1934, yet the use of handguns by criminals continues unabated. Registration certainly has not done anything to reduce the theft and diversion of handguns from commercial shipments, and smuggling remains the largest source of illegal handguns in Canada. There is absolutely no indication that Canadian firearm owners are not complying with the storage and transfer requirements established by law. The claim that universal registration will assist in police investigations unjustly and incorrectly assumes that registered owners are the individuals that will be committing crimes: the Canada Centre for Justice Statistics reports otherwise. Less than 1% of the homicides that occurred in Canada involved a registered restricted firearm and there is absolutely no indication that these firearms were used by their legal owner. The claim that a universal registration system will allow police to better prepare themselves when responding to domestic disputes can not be supported either by past study or common sense. A Department of Justice study in 1991 showed that when police respond to a domestic dispute call, 7 out of 10 officers were typically already aware of firearms presence in the home, 8 out of 10 officers typically asked about the presence of firearms, 19 out of 20 officers typically asked about threats of violence, and nearly all exhibited or expressed a willingness to seize, with or without warrant, any firearms present in the home, as allowed under current law. Common sense would surely dictate against reliance on any registration system by police officers responding to a call . To do otherwise would create the risk of making a deadly wrong assumption that there are no firearms in the home, when in actuality, there are indeed firearms that may be used against the officers. Prohibition orders filed against a criminal are currently enforced by the police by confiscation of firearms on hand, along with the strict prosecution of violations of the prohibition order and prosecution of the associated offence of wrongful delivery. These two offences will still require strict enforcement regardless of the changes in this section of the legislation, but there is no documented indication that firearms are not being confiscated when prohibition orders are placed. Perhaps the judicial use of the existing laws is lacking, but the current laws can do the job and there is no just cause to change them. It goes beyond reason to argue that registration of all the firearms owned in Canada by individuals will assist in international small-arms control when laws in the majority of the United States allow for completely unrestricted access to almost any type of firearm and commercial and retail firearm business in Canada is only a fraction of the American business volume. = Surely improvements to the tracking and control of large commercial shipments of firearms through Canada would yield better results and control. The firearms now owned and those likely to be purchased by Canadians are not the type of firearms that the international community is concerned about: Canadians, under the current law, can not purchase fully automatic firearms. As previously mentioned, this legislation causes great concern that the refusal to renew licences and registration certificates will be improperly used in order to prevent law-abiding Canadians from retaining firearms they now legally own and possess. Since this legislation allows the registration certificate or licence refusal process to be used to prevent current owners of restricted firearms who acquired their firearms for the purpose of target shooting, but for various reasons, are presently unable to target shoot, it should not be supported by this Standing Senate Committee. Providing these firearms are stored safely, and there is absolutely no indication that they are not stored safely in accordance with the current law, there is no reason for preventing the continued ownership and possession of firearms acquired for the purpose of target shooting, even though the reason that these firearms were acquired for not currently applicable. While provision for appeal of such refusal is provided elsewhere in Bill C-68, forcing responsible Canadians to the Courts to make them justify their continued possession of their legally acquired and possessed property runs against any common conception of fairness and decency, nor can such measures be rationally supported by any expectation of increases in public safety. Registered handguns and restricted rifles are not used in crime by their owners nor are they specifically the target of thieves who subsequently use them in crime after they are stolen. Studies of the origin of firearms used in crime demonstrate this point clearly. Project GunRunner found that 86% of the handguns that were confiscated or otherwise removed from the hands of criminals had never been registered in Canada and thus could not have been stolen from legitimate owners. The N.C.P.T.W.F. rejects the governments claims that a universal registration system will provide benefits to Canada and Canadian society. A universal registration system will not be beneficial. The proposed registration system will only be costly: both in terms of reductions in public safety and increases in direct financial costs. Prohibition of Currently Restricted and Registered Rifles Section 12 of Bill C-68 sets out in law, who may legally possess particular types of firearms, and again, largely repeats the existing status and laws: people who now legally own and possess fully-automatic firearms will be allowed to continue to possess these firearms, as will owners of converted semi- automatics, and owners of other firearms declared prohibited under Prohibited Weapons Order Number 12. Section 12 does contain some differences from the current law by prohibiting the future possession and ownership of a class of firearms that, up until January 1, 1995 were classified as "restricted" and as such, possession was strictly limited and controlled. These firearms are now classed as prohibited weapons as a result of Prohibited Weapons Order Number 13 and Canadians who legally possessed these restricted firearms prior to January 1, 1995 will be allowed to retain possession, and transfer ownership only to other current owners of similar firearms. The draft legislation will prohibit further acquisition of these firearms by current non-owners of this class of firearms, so that eventually, there will be one single person in Canada that can legally possess this class of firearms which consists mainly of semi-automatic rifles. This one person could potentially own over 13,000 of these firearms. The prohibition of the firearms specified under Prohibited Weapons Order Number 13 (Semi-Automatic Rifles) cannot be logically supported by any claims that the prohibition is necessary to improve public safety since these firearms were already under strict restriction and regulation. The owners of these firearms maintain registration permits, permits to transport, and comply with increased storage requirements, while these firearms are functionally no different than hundreds of thousands of other firearms legally owned in Canada. There is absolutely no indication that these type of firearms are used disproportionately in crime, or that the owners of these firearms have not been complying with the existing laws and regulations that controls and places limits on their ownership and possession of these firearms. There is no basis for the change in status of these firearms, and no basis for the prohibition of these firearms. The controls on these firearms prior to the passing of Prohibited Weapons Order Number 13 was more than sufficient and public calls for prohibition of these firearms is based on a erroneous assumption that these firearms are fully automatic: an assumption that this government is unwilling to correct through public education. Although this Standing Senate Committee does not have the authority to revoke Prohibited Weapons Order Number 13, the Committee and the Senate should not give legislative substance to the Order and therefore, Section 12(5) of Bill C-68 should be withdrawn. Additional Handgun Prohibitions Section 12(6) of Bill C-68 establishes, through legislation, an additional class of prohibited firearms: handguns with barrel lengths under 105 mm (4.14 inches) or in .25 or.32 calibre. This prohibition will affect over 555,000 handguns now legally owned and registered by Canadians across the country. While current owners of these handguns will be allowed to retain possession, they will only be permitted to transfer ownership to other current registered owners of these firearms but not to their heirs. Effectively, these firearms will lose all their monetary value, and any sentimental or cultural significance these firearms hold will be lost upon the death of their current owners. This is delayed confiscation without compensation, of legally acquired private property. The prohibition of .32 calibre handguns will also effectively destroy any future involvement of Canadians in Olympic and other international competition, since this calibre is commonly used in these competitions. Canadian shooters are currently among the best in the world, and shooting is one of the few sports where Canadians consistently rank at the top. It is unacceptable that the government should seek to wipe out the future of our competitive shooting sports. We understand that the Minister of Justice may be considering the feasibility of allowing some additional new acquisitions of .32 calibre handguns in order to allow the continuance of Canada's competitive shooting sports participation. The N.C.P.T.W.F. believes that this exempting the prohibition of certain particular models of handguns in .32 calibre will only allow those who are currently involved to remain; it will do nothing to encourage or foster the development of the sport int Canada. This Committee should recommend, specifically, to strike out Section 12(6) of Bill C-68 entirely, as well as the proposed change in definition of a prohibited firearm in the Criminal Code Section 84. This Committee must bear in mind that the future of Canada's competitive handgun shooting program is not entirely dependant on the sanctioned acquisition of a few models of highly specialized and expensive handguns. Canada's competitive handgun shooting is dependent on allowing Canadians to continue to become involved in the shooting sports, at an entry level. This means allowing, with only minimum government interference that otherwise would effectively discourage involvement, the acquisition and use of inexpensive handguns by responsible Canadians that comply with reasonable laws. The classification of .25 and .32 calibre handguns along with handguns with barrel lengths less than 105 mm (4.14 inches) as prohibited weapons cannot be supported: registered handguns (including the 555,200 that would be declared prohibited) in the hands of legitimate, legal owners account for less than 1% of the homicides that occurred in Canada from 1961 to 1991. Clearly, additional police effort needs to be directed at enforcing prohibition orders and stopping the black market smuggling operations. The prohibition of handguns with barrel lengths less than 105 mm (4.14 inches) cannot be justified with the statement that such handguns are not "suitable for organized target shooting". These handguns have been used competitively for years, and in fact, a specific competition is dedicated to the .38 calibre "Chief's Snub-Nosed Revolver", which has a 2 inch barrel. These firearms have been issued to Canadian police officers for decades as service revolvers to protect the public and enforce the laws of Canada. Surely a handgun that is sufficiently accurate for these general police uses is accurate enough for sporting uses. Further, it was the recognized shortcomings of the particular cartridge that these firearms are chambered for, i.e. .38, that has prompted the recent calls for their replacement with more modern, powerful, semi-automatic handguns, many of which are furnished with barrels under 105 mm (4.14 inches), but still seemingly accurate enough to protect the public, as were the firearms they replace. There is no justifiable reason for the prohibition of these already restricted firearms. The N.C.P.T.W.F. respectfully requests that this Standing Senate Committee objectively consider the complete lack of beneficial effects of such a prohibition and recommend to the Senate that such prohibition be struck from the legislation. Prohibition By Association Bill C-68 enables prohibition orders to be placed on individuals by reason of their association with another person subject to a prohibition order. The legislation however, does not define "association", and will result in the stigmatization of individuals that are subject to such an order. These provisions are contained in the proposed wording of Section 117.011 of the Criminal Code. There is an extremely low threshold to enable the application of the prohibition by association provision and such a prohibition is truly a cruel and unusual punishment for the simple and potential inadvertent and unavoidable association with someone who is properly subject to a prohibition order. No crime has been committed, but without a doubt, unjust punishment is meted out. All firearms owners in a factory or business could face a prohibition order based on an association with a co-worker properly subject to an order based on an imputed potential illegal transfer, notwithstanding such a transfer is currently subject to a penalty of 5 years imprisonment, and the two individuals may not even know each other. The true and proper offences of violating the original justifiable prohibition order and the offence of wrongful delivery remain and will still require enforcement. The N.C.P.T.W.F. agrees with the maintaining the present Criminal Code provisions that allow for the prohibition of firearms possession from those who truly represent a public safety risk along with the strict enforcement of the existing offence of wrongful delivery as found in the current Criminal Code Section 94.. The proposed additional prohibition by association must not be supported by this Committee. Other Prohibitions Section 12(8) seeks to prohibit ownership or possession of any firearm that is declared prohibited by the Governor in Council , subsequent to the passage of Bill C-68. Reference to proposed amendment to Section 117.15 of Criminal Code shows the intention to enable the Governor in Council the ability to declare any firearm prohibited or restricted, if in the opinion of the Governor in Council, the particular firearm is not reasonable for use in hunting or sporting uses. All Canadians should be greatly concerned that the government is seeking to confer authority to determine what is reasonable and what is not, on the Minister of Justice. It should be hunters who determine what firearms are "reasonable" for use for hunting, and target shooters who determine what firearms are suitable for target shooting. We understand this amendment is needed to allow the Minister of Justice to fulfil his promise to prohibit the future acquisition and legal use of the Ruger Mini-14 by responsible Canadians who hold valid Firearms Acquisition Certificates, solely for symbolic reasons. The Ruger Mini-14 is commonly used for target shooting and to control predators in rural areas across Canada by members of the N.C.P.T.W.F. and should not be prohibited. This particular firearm is functionally no different than hundreds of thousands of other makes and models of common sporting firearms that have been owned and used responsibly by Canadians for decades. Clearly, this prohibition has nothing to do with improving public safety. The current provisions in the Criminal Code do not allow for the prohibition of firearms Order-in-Council if they are "commonly used" for hunting or sporting purposes and this particular firearm is indeed commonly used in Canada for small game hunting, and for predator control. Beyond concerns relating directly to the Ruger Mini-14, the enabling of the prohibition of any firearm for any reason, without public or legislative review, as long as the Governor-in-Council approves, is completely unacceptable. This enabling places all firearms owners, roughly a quarter of the Canadian population, at the mercy of the capricious whims of the Federal Justice Minister and Cabinet to have their legally acquired and safely possessed and used private property arbitrarily declared prohibited. Canadians' ability to use, possess, buy, sell, trade, pass on to their children treasured items of great monetary and cultural value is endangered. This Committee should oppose such a provision that potentially would affect the culture, economics and recreation of a quarter of the Canadian population directly without specifically requiring detailed public and legislative review. Anything less runs contrary to every principle of participatory democracy. Surely, Canadians have a right to expect logical , rational rule by their governments, not symbolic gestures. This Committee should strike Section 12(7) and the proposed amendments to Criminal Code to create Section 117.15. Replica Firearms Bill C-68 also classifies replica firearms as "prohibited devices", limits their possession to only those with a licence to possess them, prevents further import, manufacture and sale, and allows only export of currently owner replicas or transfer to a business or to the Crown. Currently, non-functioning replica firearms, even those that are similar to restricted firearms, such as handguns, are not subject to control and are widely and appropriately used by firearms safety instructors in the classroom. Many others are possessed for display purposes. Such controls on replica firearms as those proposed in Bill C-68 can not logically be supported or rationalized. There is absolutely no concern for public safety by the mere possession of these replicas and elsewhere in Bill C-68, a new Criminal Code offence is created in Section 85 that mandates the same minimum sentencing provisions if a criminal uses a replica firearm rather than an actual functioning firearm while committing an indictable offence. The N.C.P.T.W.F. fully supports this widening of Section 85 to include replicas or imitations but requiring licences and "authorizations" for legal possession of these harmless, inert items can not be supported, nor can prohibition of further legitimate use of these items. The N.C.P.T.W.F. would request that this Senate Committee recommend the amendment proposed to Section 85 of the Code, but refuse to sanction any further restrictions on the public ownership and legitimate use of replica firearms. Import and Export by Individuals It is the position of the N.C.P.T.W.F. that the sections of Bill C-68 that seek to regulate the import and export of firearms by individuals needlessly complicates the process of bringing firearms across the border for personal use. These sections should not receive the approval and sanction of this Committee. Surely the existing laws and restrictions are sufficient to control the legitimate importation of firearms by Canadians. For instance, many Canadians already check their photographic equipment and firearms with Customs Officials prior to leaving Canada so that they can prove prior ownership upon their return. Firearms not so checked, can be detained at the border if the individual possessing the firearm cannot produce a valid F.A.C. or restricted weapon registration certificate. Non-residents are already prohibited from possession of restricted firearms, without prior approval of the chief provincial firearms officer, and are checked upon leaving for possession of their restricted firearms. Any requirements over and above this will seriously endanger the hunting-based tourism which contributes millions of dollars annually directly to the Canadian economy. Officials have indicated that many businesses will go bankrupt as a result. Gun Collectors The N.C.P.T.W.F. is concerned with the proposed formal definition of the term "gun collector" in Section 30 of Bill C-68 along with the conferring of increased regulatory power over collectors to the Minister of Justice in Section 117(f). This Standing Senate Committee must recognize that all collections start with a single item and collections of restricted firearms are no different, and that family heirlooms have great historical relevance to the individual involved, even though the particular firearm in the collection may not be particularly significant in terms of technology or science. Such nuances should be reflected in the legislation. The proposed regulatory power includes the authority of the Minister to regulate collections of currently non- restricted firearms, not just collections of restricted firearms. The potential exists for the Minister to declare, without public review, scrutiny and approval, that anyone owning more than a single shotgun or rifle is deemed to be a "collector". The people affected could therefore be subject to additional rules forbidding additional acquisition without undergoing mandatory inspections, or mandatory storage of the "collection" in a dwelling in some prohibitively expensive storage system. The Standing Senate Committee should not approve legislation that contains the proposed formal definition of "gun collector" nor the expanded authority to enact regulations regarding collectors. The documentation of need for such changes has not been provided by the Minister and the current controls on gun collectors are more than adequate to ensure public safety. Powers of Inspection Granted to Inspectors The N.C.P.T.W.F. is greatly concerned with the content and effect of the legislation respecting powers of inspection, search and seizure. The additional powers granted are not only unnecessary, they are an unsupportable and dangerous intrusion into all Canadian's civil rights and liberties. Section 102 of Bill C-68 would institute a major change in the search and seizure provisions in Canadian law and police practice. A police officer or inspector would no longer require a reasonable expectation that a crime was or will be committed to search without warrant or even need to subsequently seek a warrant, any place other than a dwelling house. Even in a dwelling house, the inspector is allowed to enter and inspect virtually wherever he or she chooses, simply because it is conceivable that a record relating to a firearm collection could be located anywhere in a house. Bank deposit boxes are another probable storage location relating to records of a collection that would be subject to unprecedented search, rummage, and seizures. Beyond that, Bill C-68 would require that anyone present give all assistance to carry out this search, rummage and seizure even though no crime has been committed. Nowhere else in the laws of Canada are people forced to self-incriminate and there is no just rationale for suspension of this inalienable (up to now) right. Such suspension runs directly contrary to fundamental justice. Canadians rightly expect to be considered innocent until proven guilty, and expect that their rights to privacy and security, to remain silent, and the right to seek legal council be maintained. Bill C-68 strips these rights from all Canadians, but in all likelihood, it will only be the firearms owners that experience the effects of the loss of these rights. It has been stated recently that this legislation is about the type of country that we want Canada to be. This is exactly true: we do not want a country where responsible citizens are forced by law to render all assistance to police officers as they search without warrant, for any sign or indication that there is a firearm or ammunition present in any vehicle, or place when there is absolutely no indication that a crime has been committed. We do not want Canadians to be considered guilty without proof, nor should Canadians be forced by law, to freely volunteer information or assistance that could be subsequently used against them, their spouses or their families. Canadians do want a country where their Constitutional rights are protected and respected, and the rules of natural justice prevail. These sections of Bill C-68 are an affront to all Canadians, and should be opposed by this Committee, and not accepted by the Senate. Regulation of Shooting Ranges The N.C.P.T.W.F. objects to the proposed formal regulation of government approved shooting ranges and clubs as unnecessary and inappropriate. Bill C-68, in Section 29 in conjunction with Section 117(e), seeks to control under federal law and regulation, the operation of shooting clubs and ranges throughout Canada. Standardization of such control through federal regulation will prevent the application of regional appropriateness of such regulations by provincial authorities. Clearly the rules governing shooting ranges in rural Canada should indeed be different than the rules governing ranges in urban centres, and thus, should be a matter for each province to decide and regulate. It appears that Section 117(e), which enables the Governor-in-Council to make regulations respecting all aspects relating to the establishment and operation of shooting ranges, will in practise be coupled with the periodic and ongoing review of restricted firearms licences. When a provincial minister is forced to revoke a shooting club's approval to operate for violating a federal regulation that was imposed without public review and scrutiny, club members will lose their stated purpose or rationale for the possession of their registered restricted firearms, and accordingly, face confiscation of their firearms without any compensation. At a bare minimum, any revocation of a provincial minister's approval of a shooting club or range must be appealable to a court with competent jurisdiction for impartial judicial review, and lack of access to a government approved shooting range should not be an acceptable rationale for not renewing an individual's restricted firearm registration certificate. These changes need to be made to the legislation. The N.C.P.T.W.F. objects to the proposed restrictions and granting of regulatory powers relating to shooting ranges and clubs. As stated above, firearms owned by responsible Canadians and stored in accordance with the law need not be further regulated, and the operation of government approved clubs is better controlled at the provincial level where regional variations can be accommodated. Safety Training The current law (Section 106(2)(c)) of the Criminal Code) allows for the issuance of a Firearms Acquisition Certificate if the applicant has successfully completed a course in or a test relating to the safe handling , use and laws relating to firearms. The provincial Attorney General is the designated official to determine the acceptability of the course and test. Currently Quebec and Manitoba have determined that their hunter safety education program meets or exceeds the level of training offered in the current Federal Firearms Safety Course. These provinces are presently issuing Firearms Acquisition Certificates to graduates of their respective provincial safety courses, similar to what was done in some provinces prior to the amendments to this Section of the Criminal Code resulting from Bill C-17 in 1991. Bill C-68 removes that delegation of discretionary consideration of equivalency from the provincial authorities in Section 7(4)(a) of Bill C-68 and places it with the Governor-in-Council as part of the general ability to prescribe by regulation as authorized in Section 117(w). The Federal Firearms Safety Course was built upon the foundation of provincial safe firearms training programs that have been in operation in some parts of Canada for over 30 years. Pioneering provinces in the field of safety training like Ontario should be able to continue to accept successful completion of provincial courses as meeting the equivalent standard without the approval of the Federal Minister of Justice. The current law also allows a local firearms officer to certify that an individual is competent in the safe handling, use, and knowledge of law of firearms and is detailed in a federal regulation that has been in force since January 1, 1994. Provisions for this alternate certification of competence has been removed in Bill C-68 without any rationale, and to the detriment of responsible shooting community. In some remote areas of Canada, certified instructors of the Federal Firearms Safety Course are not available, and travel to the instructor/examiner would involve considerable time and expense. Local firearms officers are in most cases, much more accessible and quite often, can personally attest to an individual's experience, knowledge of law and ability to handle a firearm safely. There has been no justification for the removal of these provisions from the Criminal Code. The N.C.P.T.W.F. requests that this Senate Committee seriously consider the effect of these changes and report back to the Senate with a recommendation that these provisions should be reinstated. Governing by Order-in-Council The N.C.P.T.W.F. is opposed to the sweeping departure from governing by legislation evidenced by the content of the regulations listed in Section 117 of Bill C-68. The draft legislation will empower the Minister of Justice to directly control virtually all aspects of Canadian firearms ownership through regulation, not legislation. The legislation will allow Canadian's activities to be controlled through regulation, although most of these people will not have ready access to the Canada Gazette, the only place where these regulations are published. Failure, by an average Canadian, to read, understand, and abide by a regulation that he or she has no access to, and often have great difficulty understanding, could potentially result in criminal charges being laid which could result in a jail term of up to 5 years. It must be remembered that these potential breaches of regulations result in victimless transgressions, and the associated penalties are far beyond what would be reasonably expected. When balanced against the proposed sentencing structure that will call for a mandatory 4 year imprisonment for using a firearm while committing one of 10 violent crimes, the potential for a longer jail term for an administrative offence fosters disrespect for the law and the criminal justice system and rightly leads firearms owners to notions of persecution. The legislation does require the Minister of Justice to lay before the House each proposed regulation which in turn is referred to an appropriate Committee that is empowered to hold inquiries or public hearings. However, the Minister is not required to wait for the Committee's report, or even to heed the recommendations of the Committee, but is allowed to proceed to implement whatever regulation desired, notwithstanding the fact that the final regulation made is completely different than what was originally proposed. This is a complete delegation of ability to create substantive law for which Criminal Code penalties would be created. Provisions such as these, if implemented, will seriously impair the democratic functioning of the House of Commons, and run directly contrary to the federal government's own Citizen's Code of Regulatory Fairness which requires public review and input. This Standing Senate Committee should vehemently object to this delegation of law-making authority from the House of Commons to the Minister an d Governor-in-Council. Completely unfettered discretion to control through regulation all non-criminal aspects of firearm use in Canada is completely unacceptable to the N.C.P.T.W.F. Summary and Recommendations The Citizens Code of Regulatory Fairness requires the federal government to adhere to and conform to certain principles: to interfere as little as possible with individual freedoms, while protecting the interests of the community; to enable individuals, businesses and other governments to provide input to the federal regulatory process; to fully explain regulations and their effects in clear language; to ensure that the regulations do not affect particular people or groups unfairly; to match the penalties for not complying with the regulations with the seriousness of the violations; to ensure that the decisions of regulatory agencies and departments are made in an efficient, prompt, and predictable manner; and to regulate only where there is clear evidence that a problem exists, government intervention is justified, regulation is the best alternative, and the benefits exceed the costs. Bill C-68 violates all these principles. On behalf of over 500,000 members of our component federations and associations, we ask that this Committee refuse to sanction, approve or recommend Bill C-68 in its present form. Those sections of the Bill that increase the mandatory sentencing provisions for criminal firearms use offences are whole- heartedly supported. However, the changes that Bill C-68 would impose upon the non-criminal aspects of firearms ownership, possession and use in Canada are unsupportable and unacceptable. We respectfully request that because of these proposed changes to the non-criminal aspects of firearms controls, this Standing Senate Committee refrain from recommending Bill C-68 for assent. Endnotes List of Appendices Appendix A: Report of the Auditor General to the House of Commons, 1993. Appendix B: Domestic Homicides Involving the Use of Firearms. Dansys Consultants Inc., March 1992. Appendix C: Police Responses to Domestic Violence: A Study of the Use of Criminal Code Provisions Relating to Firearms. Colin Meredith, Chantal Paquette, Abt Associates of Canada, June 1991. Appendix D: The Impact of the Availability of Firearms on Violent Crime, Suicide, and Accidental Death. Thomas Gabor, 1994. Appendix E: Research on the Application of Section 85 of the Criminal Code of Canada. Colin Meredith, Bruno Steinke, and Sherilyn Palmer. December 1994. Appendix F: Gun Control is not Crime Control. Gary Mauser. March 1995. Appendix G: Much More Than Gun Control. Shafer Parker, Jr. April 24, 1995. Appendix H: Various Municipal Resolutions. Appendix I: Review of Firearms Registration. Terence Wade and Roger Tennuci. November 1994. Appendix J: Project Gun Runner Report. Const. Geoff Francis. Undated. Appendix K: Citizen's Code of Regulatory Fairness. Appendix L: Arguments Against Further Gun Control At This Time. William Bartlett. September 1994. Appendix M: Various Media reports of breaches in computer security. Appendix N: Mauser, G. An Outline of a Cost / Benefit Analysis of the Proposed Firearms Owners Licence and Universal Firearms Registry, British Columbia Wildlife Federation, May 1995.