From cdn-firearms@skatter.usask.ca Wed May 3 08:22:00 1995 Originator: cdn-firearms@skatter.usask.ca From: dvc14@fox.nstn.ca (Calvin Martin, Q.C.) To: skeeter@skatter.usask.ca Subject: Dr. Judith Ross presentation to C-68 Committee X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Content-Length: 10748 Status: RO X-Lines: 200 This message was submitted by dvc14@fox.nstn.ca (Calvin Martin, Q.C.) to list cdn-firearms@skatter.usask.ca. If you forward it back to the list, it will be distributed without the paragraphs above the dashed line. You may edit the Subject: line and the text of the message before forwarding it back. If you edit the messages you receive into a digest, you will need to remove these paragraphs and the dashed line before mailing the result to the list. Finally, if you need more information from the author of this message, you should be able to do so by simply replying to this note. ----------------------- Message requiring your approval ---------------------- Sender: dvc14@fox.nstn.ca (Calvin Martin, Q.C.) Subject: Dr. Judith Ross presentation to C-68 Committee >Date: Wed, 3 May 1995 10:50:02 -0300 >X-Sender: dvc14@fox.nstn.ca >To: dvc14@fox.nstn.ca >From: dvc14@fox.nstn.ca (Calvin Martin, Q.C.) >Subject: Dr. Judith Ross presentation to C-68 Committee >X-Attachments: D:\JUDITH\OACAPRES.TXT; > >Dr. Judith Ross' presentation to the committee on May 2, 1995 follows > > > >Presentation to Parliamentary Committee on Bill C-68 by Dr. Judith Ross on behalf of the Ontario Arms Collectors Association, May 2, 1995: > >1. Crime control and public safety are not the issues. > >I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak with you this morning. You have received in advance a copy of a paper I wrote which was sent to all Members of Parliament a few months ago when this further gun control legislation was first proposed. This paper provides a detailed and factual refutation of the arguments put forth by those who seek further gun control legislation. This document along with documents sent to you and all Members of Parliament by organizations such as the Ontario Handgun Assoc iation and the Fraser Institute clearly indicate that restricting the access of law-abiding individuals to firearms does absolutely nothing to reduce crime and contributes absolutely nothing to public safety. > >This point has been made time and time again since Bill C-17 was introduced a few years ago. This past September, 23,000 owners of firearms took a day off from work and came to Parliament Hill to bring this message directly to their representatives in Parliament. Their rallying cry was "Crime control, not gun control". Since last summer there have been well attended rallies all across this country where firearms collectors and recreational shooters gathered to make this point. Yet the Minister of Justice and the Prime Minister seem not to have heard this message and they have persisted and put forth Bill C-68. > >Along with many other people in this country, I have been wonder ing why. Why, when the point has been made over and over again that gun controls directed at legitimate owners of firearms contribute absolutely nothing to crime control or public safety, are more such gun control measures introduced? > >2. Registration serves no useful purpose and the cost is prohib itive. > >Why would the Minister of Justice want to register all firearms? It is absurd to think for a minute that this would be a crime control measure. Criminals will not register their firearms. It has been demonstrated that the cost of such registration will be phenomenal, that funds which could be well used to do something that would reduce crime or benefit the public in some other way will be diverted to this useless activity; that many individuals will not comply and otherwise law-abiding people will become criminals. Why does the Minister of Justice, in the face of significant arguments against registration, persist in this plan? >3. Registration does lead to confiscation. Prohibitions are arbitrary. > >Why would the Minister of Justice state that registration does not lead to confiscation when there is abundant evidence that that is precisely what has happened and what Bill C-68 indicates will continue to happen? A number of rifles and shotguns have already been prohibited in a totally arbitrary manner; that is, there is no valid reason related to public safety to single out these firearms for prohibition. But that is precisely what has happened by Order in Council. Many firearms have been prohibited which means that their owners have had to hand them in to the government for destruction. And now Bill C-68 clearly prohibits 2/3 of the pistols owned by law-abiding individuals, many of these are collectors items and many are target pistols in current use in competitions such as the Olympic and Commonwealth games. Some of these firearms may be grandfathered but that is simply a form of delayed confiscation. > >Exactly what purpose does the Minister of Justice feel is served by such prohibitions? Certainly the loss to firearms collectors and recreational shooters is staggering. > >4. There is another agenda; the elimination of civilian owner ship of firearms. > >As Canada already has very strict gun control legislation, as there is overwhelming evidence that gun control measures directed at law-abiding firearms collectors and recreational shooters contribute absolutely nothing to public safety, as universal firearm registration is useless and expensive, as prohibition of various firearms is arbitrary, senseless, and a serious violation of the right to private property, and as all this is well docu mented, we must ask why is the Minister of Justice proposing and, indeed, insisting on this legislation? > >This is a very serious question. It is a question that the members of this committee and all Members of Parliament should be asking. In thinking about this, there is only one conclusion that can reasonably be drawn and that is that crime control is not the purpose of this legislation but that there is another agenda. > >What is this other agenda? What is the reason behind Bill C-68? What makes it so important to the Minister of Justice that he invokes closure to limit debate, that he restricts access to the Bill by limiting the copies that Members of Parliament receive, that Members who question or oppose the Bill are threatened and punished, and that this committee refuse to hear the testimony of acknowledged experts and important organizations? > >An examination of the Bill leads to the inescapable conclusion that one aspect of this hidden agenda is the elimination of private ownership of firearms in Canada. > >This Bill allows for the arbitrary prohibition, ultimate confis cation, and eventual destruction of any and all firearms. This would be done through Order in Council. Both the War Measures Act and the Emergencies Act of 1988 which replaced it required that orders and regulations come before Parliament for approval after debate by both houses of government. But in Bill C-68, Mr. Rock has assumed wide-sweeping new powers in that the Minister of Justice will be exempted from having his orders or regulations come before Parliament. Any thoughtful Canadian and this should include Members of Parliament, regardless of their views on firearms or their political party affiliation must be concerned about the implications of this legislation. > >5. Rights abuses. > >There are other aspects of this Bill which reveal more about this hidden agenda. > >The Minister of Justice also gives himself total power to regu late every aspect of firearms use and recreational shooting. He will have the power to regulate activities at all gun clubs and shooting ranges and to decide what firearms are "reasonable for use in Canada for hunting and sporting purposes". > >We are looking at a situation where ownership of firearms and their use will be dictated by the Minister of Justice at his whim and with no recourse even to Parliament. > >The hidden agenda clearly involves the abolition of civilian ownership of firearms. But the civil liberties implications go well beyond that, and here every Canadian, regardless of his or her views on firearms, must be deeply concerned. > >It is not putting it too extremely to say that the extension of police powers permitted by Bill C-68 amounts to the loss of the protection of the individual from the abuse of power of the government to the point that Canada would be turned into a police state. An examination of sections 98, 99, 100, 107, among others, indicates the loss of the right against self incrimina tion, the right to private property, and the right against unreasonable search and seizure. You may say that these viola tions would occur only to owners of firearms but you must realize that these are law-abiding individuals (you have to be law- abiding to legally own a firearm in Canada) and, in any case, an extremely dangerous precedent would be set by allowing these violations of personal liberties. In fact some of these provi sions can be used against individuals other than firearms owners. > >Why does Mr. Rock have this personal agenda that involves such a serious loss of basic democratic rights for firearms owners? Mr. Rock may have revealed some of his reasons when he stated re cently that registration was needed in order to be sure that no one was stockpiling firearms in order to start a militia. When does a collection leave off and a stockpile begin? When do you have recreational shooters and hunters and when do you have a militia? Mr. Rock seems to see sinister implications to lawful and innocent activities. His remarks were probably scare tactics that he used in light of the recent horrible and tragic events in Oklahoma. But I think these remarks reveal his motives. A democratic government should not have reason to fear its people. Canada has its domestic problems. The invocation of the War Measures Act and the stand-off at Oka are not far behind us. And the Quebec referendum is not far ahead. But firearms owners are not joining militias in Canada. They are joining new political parties. And more people who are not firearms owners will join these parties as they start to see that their government, or at least their Minister of Justice, does not trust them and is so willing to violate the basic protection of their freedom that is guaranteed them under the Constitution. > >Members of this committee, you really must think about the implications of Bill C-68. Whatever your views on firearms, you cannot support this frightening and dangerous Bill. > > >Calvin Martin,QC,LLB >600 Church Street >Toronto, Canada, M4Y 2E7 >Tel 416 922-5854 Fax 416 922-5854 >E-Mail dvc14@fox.nstn.ca > > Calvin Martin,QC,LLB 600 Church Street Toronto, Canada, M4Y 2E7 Tel 416 922-5854 Fax 416 922-5854 E-Mail dvc14@fox.nstn.ca