Presentation to Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs by Dr. Judith Ross on behalf of the Ontario Arms Collectors Association, September 21, 1995. I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak with this committee about this very controversial bill. You have all received in advance a copy of a paper I wrote which provides a detailed refutation of the arguments put forth by those who seek further gun control legislation and a copy of my presentation to the House Committee on Bill C-68. I would like to request that these documents be entered into the record of these committee hearings, as read, along with my present remarks. Bill C-68 contains many elements which are of tremendous concern not only to the legitimate firearms community but also to the general public. It is important to realize, and many Canadians are more and more becoming aware of this, that Bill C-68 is not in fact what it purports to be. That is, Bill C-68 is not essentially a piece of legislation that deals with crime or public safety. There is very little in this bill that will hold up to rational and logical examination as a measure which will contribute to the reduction of crimes of violence or which will enhance public safety. With few exceptions, this bill focuses on placing further restrictions on the already heavily controlled law-abiding Canadian firearms community. These restrictions will serve no useful purpose in that they will contribute absolutely nothing to public safety but they will have very negative and far reaching effects on the Canadian firearms community. It is to be hoped that the Senate in its wisdom will retain with some modification the sections of this bill which do deal with criminal activity and will amend the bill so as to eliminate those sections which impact only on the law-abiding activities of the Canadian firearms community. It is important to realize that one or two amendments, even of sections of the bill that are of great concern, will not be sufficient to deal with the many very serious problems with this bill. At the very least the bill should be amended by deleting or very significantly altering the following sections. 1. Registration: It is totally illogical to consider this a means of crime control. The only real purpose of registration is that it is a necessary prelude to confiscation if that is the government's goal. The Canadian firearms community considers this to be the case and this aspect of the bill has caused great anguish as normally law-abiding people will be criminalized for non-compliance. Registration will be extremely expensive by anyone's calculations. It is opposed by 4 provinces and 2 territories. 2. Search and seizure: Sections 101, 102, and 104 permit entry into one's premises without even the suspicion of a crime. What is required is merely a belief that a firearm or a record pertaining to a firearm exists. This is called "inspection" but that is a euphemism for unreasonable search and seizure. This is a serious violation of civil liberties and of the right to privacy. The Canadian Civil Liberties Association has objected to these sections. 3. Self incrimination: Section 103 denies the right to counsel or to silence as the occupant of a place which is being searched must cooperate with "inspectors" or face criminal prosecution. 4. Presumption of innocence: The reverse onus which occurs in several places in this bill requires firearms owners to prove their innocence or be convicted. This is generally considered unacceptable in a democracy. 5. Prohibitions: This is confiscation without compensation and without any sensible reason. 58% of handguns have recently been prohibited by Order in Council for no valid reasons. Many of them are target shooting guns. The choices were arbitrary. These guns are not used in crime more than other firearms. Although the actual confiscation may be deferred until the death of the owner this is a loss of private property without compensation. 6. Shooting clubs: Sections 29 and 117 will be used to regulate activities that may be carried on at shooting clubs, ranges, and gun shows. As there has never been even a suggestion of a criminal problem in these settings one may wonder at the need for these sections. Moreover, subsection 7 of section 29 was added by the Justice Minister after first reading. This subsection is designed to protect informants at shooting clubs, ranges, and gun shows and is an interesting and sinister indication of the direction of the government's thinking regarding law-abiding users of firearms. 7. Regulations: Sections 117, 118, and 119 give the Minister of Justice extraordinarily broad and absolute powers to do whatever he wants without check by Parliament. He will be able to govern shooting ranges and even close them totally. He will be able to tell shooters how they can use their firearms in target shooting and target shooting competitions. He will be able to prohibit firearms that in his opinion are "unreasonable" for hunting and sporting purposes. This is a significant change from the present wording which states "not commonly used" for hunting or sporting purposes. This new wording does not allow for a court challenge because the Justice Minister is given the right to prohibit solely on the basis of his opinion. One must wonder at the reason for this wording. Moreover, this section was re-introduced after it was deleted by the Justice Committee. The Minister will also be able to decide how the bill applies to the aboriginal people and he has the power to create a different law for them. The Minister will be able to set and change any fees, such as the fees for registration and licenses. The Minister will be able to create offenses. The Minister will be able to regulate possession of firearms. The Justice Minister will be able to do anything he wants to do. These sweeping powers will not be subject to the scrutiny of Parliament. This is a very serious point. It is important to consider why this area of legislation should be different from all others that require notice to Parliament and allow for discussion in Parliament. 8. Constitutional problems: Certain sections create a constitutional change without provincial approval and in doing so they violate the constitutional jurisdiction of the provinces (section 117 regarding regulation of shooting clubs, section 116 of C-68 and sections 103, 104 of C-68 amendments to Part III of the Crinminal Code). A section that could be retained with modification is the section that deals with criminal acts. The Canadian firearms community has long asked the government to deal with crimes of violence but the amendments to Section 85 of the Criminal Code focus more on the firearms than on the violence. Attempted murder or sexual assault with a knife or other weapon is just as repugnant and should be punished just as strongly as when a firearm is used. In fact, as the most brutal assaults are usually committed with knives, the greater penalty for using a firearm does not make sense. This section could be used to further penalize firearms owners. For example, criminal negligence causing death with a firearm has a minimum sentence but this is not the case with any other weapon. This means that a person could be convicted of criminal negligence causing death by using a car and may not even get a jail sentence but if a person is convicted of criminal negligence causing death by using a firearm that person would be jailed for a minimum of 4 years. To penalize someone because of the nature of the instrument that caused the injury is not logical. Another problem with this section is the mandatory minimum sentence. The Canadian Civil Liberties Association has objected to this part of the bill saying that the imposition of mandatory minimum sentences is "an approach that represents arbitrary adjudication". They have said that it should be deleted. I am pleased to have this opportunity to speak with you about this bill. I hope that you will decide to extend this opportunity to the many important groups which represent other parts of the Canadian firearms community but which were not invited to speak with the House committee or with this committee thus far.