From: owner-can-firearms-digest@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca (Cdn-Firearms Digest) To: cdn-firearms-digest@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca Subject: Cdn-Firearms Digest V5 #724 Reply-To: cdn-firearms-digest@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca Sender: owner-can-firearms-digest@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca Errors-To: owner-can-firearms-digest@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca Precedence: normal Cdn-Firearms Digest Wednesday, February 5 2003 Volume 05 : Number 724 In this issue: FW: Ontario court ruling may affect pot growing surveillance Letter: Gun registration won't stop a madman Editorial: The right to overspend?: Editorial: Registry farce Editorial: Targeted funding Editorial: The gun registry: pricey but vital HALF-CAULKED MAN STILL FREE N.S. Mi'kmaq man loses court fight for free gun licence based on race ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 5 Feb 2003 07:18:08 -0600 (CST) From: "Jim Pook" Subject: FW: Ontario court ruling may affect pot growing surveillance http://www.northislandweekender.com/ Ontario court ruling may affect pot growing surveillance Weekender file Police will often use infra-red cameras to detect heat outside a home emanating from indoor marijuana growing operations. By Paul Rudan A recent appeals court decision in Ontario regarding infra-red technology used to seek out marijuana grow operations may have an impact on court cases in British Columbia, say two Campbell River lawyers. “Yes, this is a significant decision,” said Tom Bishop, a federal Crown prosecutor who handles many of the drug cases in Campbell River. On Monday the Ontario Court of Appeal ruled that police will now have to obtain a search warrant before they can use infra-red aerial cameras to investigate possible indoor pot growing operations. The cameras, known as Forward Looking Infra-Red (FLIR), are used widely by police across North America to detect heat concentrations which may be caused by the high-intensity lights used to grow indoor marijuana. If the cameras detect unusual amounts of heat emanating from a building, this information can be used to help obtain a search warrant for the residence. “Yes, we do use them but not on a daily basis,” said Staff Sgt. Doug Greep of the Campbell River RCMP. “We’ll have to see where this (decision) takes us.” In its decision, the Ontario Court of Appeal overturned a lower court conviction and acquitted a Windsor man, Walter Tessling, who had been sentenced to 18 months in prison from growing pot. Police had obtained a search warrant after first using information gathered from aerial FLIR surveillance. “FLIR technology discloses more information about what goes on inside a house than is detectable by normal observation or surveillance,” wrote Justice Rosalie Abella. “In my view, there is an important distinction between observations that are made by the naked eye or even by enhanced aids, such as binoculars, which are in common use, and observations which are the product of technology.” Doug Marion is a Campbell River lawyer who has defended people accused of growing marijuana and he believes the Ontario court made the right decision. “My view has always been it is intrusive and is an invasion of privacy,” he said Wednesday outside a Campbell River courtroom. “It’s unclear how sensitive the police equipment is and in my view it shows activity inside the home that is not in plain view. That being the case, you should have a warrant if you want to do it.” Bishop doesn’t know just yet if he will advise police to obtain a search warrant before using FLIR. The point of using FLIR, he said, is to supplement existing information in order to get a search warrant. In addition, he said, the Court of Appeal for British Columbia has made at least two decision regarding the use of FLIR cameras and those would take precedence over the Ontario decision. In the 1996 decision Regina versus Eric William Hutchings, the B.C. Court of Appeal ruled that police had every right to use aerial FLIR information to obtain a search warrant which led police to seizing marijuana and growing equipment which Hutchings had in his Yarrow barn. “The helicopter did not fly directly over the subject property, nor did it disclose activities within the barn. It only indicated the presence of heat emanating from within the building,” wrote Chief Justice McEachern in his October 1996 decision. However, in a 2001 Supreme Court of British Columbia decision, Regina versus Teuvo Kuitenen and Eugene Ostiguy, Justice Oppal ruled that an arrest warrant invalid because police flew too low over a home in obtaining FLIR information. “The accused’s right to privacy was clearly violated by the inordinately low altitude of the fights,” he wrote in his judgment. “The police admitted that the altitude of the fly-overs was so low that they could see one of the parties urinating. This was a private residence. The fly-overs together with the use of the intrusive technology constituted an unlawful search and seizure.” So what constitutes too low or high enough for aerial FLIR surveillance? Good question said Bishop who pointed out that the big bust last December of an underground marijuana grow operation on Loveland Bay Road involved FLIR surveillance. Bishop said the difference between the various court rulings is surveillance of a home compared to a building or structure. He said B.C. courts have always strongly upheld a person’s Charter right to privacy within their home. The British Columbia rulings will take precedence over the Ontario decision in B.C. courtrooms, said Bishop but he suspects the final decision about the use of FLIR will have to be made by the Supreme Court of Canada. “It’s likely to spark debate,” said Bishop. “This is not a rare occurrence for courts in different provinces to disagree – it’s a matter of personal views. You have two courts with contrary conclusions – it’s interesting.” Marion said he may use the Ontario court ruling in some defences and he said there is one case in Courtenay where it may be effective in helping a client. “I can see it being used in cases coming up – I’m going to advocate the courts to follow the Ontario decision as being more consistent with the Charter of Rights,” he said. “This puts B.C. and Ontario in opposition but not completely though. It’s something the Supreme Court of Canada will have to resolve.” © Copyright 2003 North Island Weekender Jim Pook Tahsis, BC Canada jim@tahsisbc.com www.tahsisbc.com www.jimsfishing.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 5 Feb 2003 07:21:57 -0600 (CST) From: "Breitkreuz, Garry - Assistant 1" Subject: Letter: Gun registration won't stop a madman PUBLICATION: The Leader-Post (Regina) DATE: 2003.02.05 EDITION: Final SECTION: Letters PAGE: B8 BYLINE: Frank S. McLeod SOURCE: The Leader-Post - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Gun registration won't stop a madman - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- John Warnock thinks control over firearms is the mark of a "civilized" society (Jan. 29 Leader-Post). However he soon makes it plain that by "control", he means abolition. When Alan Rock introduced his firearms legislation, he said that "only the police and army should have firearms". That is the definition of a police state. Is that what you want? The recreational firearms community does not oppose the licensing of firearm owners, which has existed for some 15 years, long before Bill C68. There are those in society who should not be allowed to own firearms, for various reasons. Warnock and others are still citing the appalling Montreal Massacre as justification for their stance. If Bill C68 had been in force then, it would not have prevented that madman from his course of action. We cannot legislate against insanity -- he got his firearm from the local armory to which he had access. Registering a firearm will not prevent its use for criminal purposes, either in the home or on the street. Handguns have been registered since 1934 in Canada and recently the solicitor general admitted in the House of Commons that not once had the registry solved a crime with a handgun. You see, criminals have never registered their handguns, nor will they register any rifles or shotguns that they might use in crime. Members of the recreational firearms community have registered their guns, but they are not the ones committing the crimes. The police admit that the present registry is so full of errors that it cannot be relied on in a crisis. Both England and Australia initiated registration of all firearms, followed predictably by confiscation. What happened next was also predictable -- the underworld became awash with smuggled handguns, and the streets of London are almost as dangerous as those of Washington and Chicago. Already we have seen a surge in crime on the streets of Toronto and Edmonton. Those gun owners are not registered, nor are their guns. Shooting sports are safe activities. Look at a graph of sport injuries and if the shooting sports even make the list, they are far behind tennis and golf. The shooting fraternity is not responsible for the present rash of violence in Canada and should not be punished as if it were responsible. Saskatchewan is not the only province to oppose firearm registration. All but two of the provinces have refused to support the federal government in implementing the national firearms act -- a good indication that this is bad legislation. The billion-dollar gun registry boondoggle revealed by the auditor general has made headlines. She hinted at a host of other expenses that were so well hidden that she could not complete her audit. In fact, Canadian Alliance MP Garry Breitkreuz of Yorkton has found there are some 200 pages of associated expenses hidden in other departments under cabinet secrecy which blocks his access-to-information probes. Just think how much health care $1 billion-plus could buy -- how many MRIs, how many needless deaths from breast cancer prevented. As Anne McLellan said "if it saves one life" . . . you be the judge. Frank S. McLeod McLeod is a member of the Saskatchewan Association of Firearm Educators. Regina ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 5 Feb 2003 07:22:30 -0600 (CST) From: "Breitkreuz, Garry - Assistant 1" Subject: Editorial: The right to overspend?: PUBLICATION: The Ottawa Citizen DATE: 2003.02.05 EDITION: Final SECTION: News PAGE: A14 SOURCE: The Ottawa Citizen - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- The right to overspend?: Bloated, inefficient human rights commission needs an overhaul - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Four years ago, the auditor general of the day, Denis Desautels, issued a scathing report on the Canadian Human Rights Commission. Cumbersome, inefficient, too many backlogged cases, a confusing mandate and even empire-building; these were among the charges levelled against the agency in Mr. Desautels's 1998 study. Most damning of all, though, was the view that the commission was failing to resolve the human-rights complaints it received efficiently and impartially. Has the commission put things right? Not according to a parliamentary committee report released last week. Members of the public accounts committee claim the agency has done little to rectify the failings identified by the auditor general. "Despite some improvements (since the auditor general's report), the fundamental problems still remain," the committee concludes. Indeed, the situation has prompted some committee members to declare the commission "broken" and, perhaps, in need of decommissioning. "If they can't fix it or make it better, or don't want to, maybe we should shut it down," said Liberal MP Beth Phinney. Her frustration is understandable. The commission's operating budget for the 2002-2003 fiscal year was supposed to be $17.9 million. However, various "adjustments," "ad hoc supplements" and "services received without charge" (whatever they are) bumped the budget for the agency and its 220 employees to $25.6 million. Yet, despite the commission's budget problems, senior executives last year awarded themselves a performance bonus. "They gave themselves raises even though they hadn't solved any of their problems," said Ms. Phinney. "How do they justify that?" Perhaps the performance bonuses were for being successful in squeezing more money out of Treasury Board, contrary to the board's guidelines, which stipulate that contingency funding is intended for "miscellaneous minor and unforeseen expenses." It is certainly not intended, committee chairman and Alliance MP John Williams notes, to allow the commission to paper over its problems with money. "The government tried to bury the whole thing through ad hoc funding rather than put it in the main estimates" (where it is more readily subject to parliamentary scrutiny). He and his committee rightly insist that the government put an immediate end to ad hoc funding, declaring it "absolutely unacceptable." The ultimate responsibility for the commission lies with the government, or, more specifically, with Justice Minister Martin Cauchon, whose department oversees it. This same department is responsible for the massively over-budget gun registry, which has also made heavy use of contingency funding. Is there a pattern? In April 2002, the current auditor general, Sheila Fraser, pointed out that government contingency funding has too often been used to cover spending on things never explicitly authorized by Parliament. For example, $95 million in grants that went to the airline industry in 2001. Obviously, some hard questions need to be asked of the justice minister. The commission's problems have been known for some time. That they seem to be ongoing is cause for concern. To be sure, there have been some changes at the commission in the last year. In August, Mary Gusella replaced former chief commissioner Michelle Falardeau-Ramsay, under whose watch the performance bonuses were awarded. And, according to commission spokeswoman Cathy Barratt, there have been "significant changes" to improve accountability and efficiency. Still, in light of the public accounts committee report, a parliamentary review of the Human Rights Commission is in order. Taxpayers have rights, too. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 5 Feb 2003 07:23:16 -0600 (CST) From: "Breitkreuz, Garry - Assistant 1" Subject: Editorial: Registry farce PUBLICATION: The Moncton Times and Transcript DATE: 2003.02.05 SECTION: Opinion PAGE: D7 COLUMN: Editorials - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Registry farce - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- The federal government, despite releasing two expensive reports into the gun registry fiasco, has yet to explain to Canadians how what should have been a $2 million program managed to cost taxpayers almost a billion dollars. And now it is saying we may not know until next fall. That is not good enough. It smacks of political delay and politicians hoping the questions will fade away. They won't. Canadians deserve an explanation of why this program went off the rails and why it cost so much. They deserve an explanation of why the brakes were not put on when it became obvious the program was out of control and clearly not working. And it deserves an explanation of why, despite all the evidence that the registry is a failure, a waste of tax money, and unable to achieve the policy objectives intended, the government continues to insist on forging ahead, throwing good money after bad. Two "expert" reports and $142,000 later and Canadians are still none the wiser. This is not good government, it's farce. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 5 Feb 2003 07:25:05 -0600 (CST) From: "Breitkreuz, Garry - Assistant 1" Subject: Editorial: Targeted funding PUBLICATION: Calgary Herald DATE: 2003.02.05 EDITION: Final SECTION: Opinion PAGE: A14 SOURCE: Calgary Herald - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Targeted funding - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Tales of woe from the Canadian Firearms Centre no longer surprise Canadians. They may still be appalled, however. Two reports on the gun registry released this week reveal the scope and complexity of the task was completely underestimated in 1995, when then-justice minister Allan Rock demanded registration of all firearms in Canada. This, despite abundant warnings that registration was not only a feeble response to crime, but would also face formidable technical challenges. Further, regional patronage appears to have contributed significantly to the centre's costly inefficiency. Consultants use euphemisms. The inefficient geographic dispersion of the registry is said to "sub-optimize" it. Conceding the registry was "dauntingly complex," consultant Raymond Hession continues, "The project struck to manage the development failed to prescribe the business process and technical architecture of the solution." Our less charitable version would be that Rock wanted a high-profile policy hit. Disregarding the warnings, and with no clear idea of how, he instructed his department to make the registry happen. And by the way, could they put offices in Edmonton, Ottawa, Montreal and Miramichi? Then he left to accept the Health portfolio. Objectors were ignored. Those who approved but worried about the price were fobbed off with assurances the program would be self-funding, at about $80 million. Now, with $1 billion wasted, Hession tells Canadians that to protect their bad investment, further expenditures of $500 million over the next decade will be needed. They wouldn't have paid half that for a registry to begin with. It is not too late for Ottawa to dump this turkey. It should. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 5 Feb 2003 07:27:05 -0600 (CST) From: "Breitkreuz, Garry - Assistant 1" Subject: Editorial: The gun registry: pricey but vital PUBLICATION: Toronto Star DATE: 2003.02.05 SECTION: EDITORIAL PAGE: A26 - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- The gun registry: pricey but vital - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- There was no "$1-billion boondoggle" in Canada's new gun registry. There were just wildly unrealistic expectations from the very start. Keeping track of 2.3 million gun owners and 8 million guns was never going to happen on the cheap, a new report confirms. "If you ask me what should it have cost, we're not that far off," concludes Raymond Hession after conducting a study of the "astronomical cost overruns" cited by Auditor-General Sheila Fraser. Hession found no "boondoggle" or wrongdoing. However, former justice minister Allan Rock did goof, spectacularly, in 1995 when he promised the Canadian Firearms Program would cost $2 million. That was "plainly based on flawed assumptions," Hession reports. No kidding. It will cost $1 billion by 2005. "The architecture evolved and, change by change, the project grew more complex. The development costs escalated," not only under Rock, but also under Anne McLellan and Martin Cauchon, the current minister. Meanwhile, a clutch of top mandarins, including deputy justice ministers John Tait, George Thomson and now Morris Rosenberg, seemed unable to tame the management/cost monster. Neither, apparently, could the people running the firearms centre, including Richard Mosley, Maryantonett Flumian and now Gary Webster. Even today "the program administration remains unnecessarily complex and costly," Hession reports. This is a depressing commentary on government and the abilities of our top federal bureaucrats. Can no one in Ottawa identify and challenge hideously flawed assumptions? Or rein in costs? Why didn't someone blow the whistle on this mess? Or did Rock and then McLellan just ignore them? The consoling bit is, we now have a system that works. Scrapping it, as critics have urged from the outset, would be a double waste. The set-up is mostly paid for. And costs can be trimmed by combining offices and capping spending. That done, it can be run for $63 million a year. Or on a break-even basis, if licensing fees are increased slightly. Nobody suggests the registry is an answer to all gun crime. Thugs will still smuggle weapons across the American border, or steal them. But the registry does promote safety, transparency and accountability. Most Canadians, 7 in 10, believe that gun owners should be licensed, screened to weed out violent and unstable personalities, schooled in safe handling and storage, and aware of the laws. Most believe firearms should be registered. Canada's club of police chiefs agrees. And gun owners are complying: 92 per cent are now licensed and 74 per cent of licensees have applied to register guns. Police use the system 2,000 times a day to identify public safety threats. They've refused or revoked 9,000 licences from potentially violent spouses and others. There's been a steep drop in missing and stolen guns. And we're safer because of it. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 5 Feb 2003 07:27:54 -0600 (CST) From: "Breitkreuz, Garry - Assistant 1" Subject: HALF-CAULKED MAN STILL FREE PUBLICATION: The Calgary Sun DATE: 2003.02.05 EDITION: Final SECTION: News PAGE: 30 BYLINE: CP DATELINE: RED DEER, Alta. - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- HALF-CAULKED MAN STILL FREE - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Gun registry opponent Bruce Hutton failed in his mission Monday to be charged by police. Hutton, who refuses to obey a new federal law requiring people to register their firearms, unsuccessfully tried to give himself up to Mounties in Red Deer. "The law does nothing to make Canadians safer," Hutton, a retired RCMP officer, told supporters. Hutton marched into the station with a caulking gun which had been fashioned into a firearm. Police declined to arrest him but kept the device for safety reasons. Hutton hoped to be charged in order to take the fight against the gun registry to the Supreme Court of Canada. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 5 Feb 2003 07:41:43 -0600 (CST) From: "Breitkreuz, Garry - Assistant 1" Subject: N.S. Mi'kmaq man loses court fight for free gun licence based on race DATE: 2003.02.04 CATEGORY: Atlantic regional general news PUBLICATION: cpw - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- N.S. Mi'kmaq man loses court fight for free gun licence based on race - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- HALIFAX (CP) _ A Nova Scotia Mi'kmaq man is not entitled to a free gun licence just because he is an aboriginal, the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia has ruled. Franklyn John Jesty should not automatically have the $60 fee for his hunting rifle waived based on his ethnicity, Justice David MacAdam wrote in a decision handed down last week. Jesty had claimed his traditional hunting rights, upheld by the Supreme Court of Canada, should exempt him from the fee. However, the judge said there is nothing in the provincial Firearms Act allowing preferential treatment for the province's native people. He said Jesty can have the fee waived if he can prove that he, as an individual, requires firearms to hunt or trap in order to sustain himself or his family. ``The issue is whether the applicant requires the firearm to hunt or trap in order to sustain himself or herself or his or her family, and not simply whether the applicant is aboriginal,'' MacAdam ruled. Jesty applied to the chief firearms officer last year for the waiver, saying that as an aboriginal sustenance harvester he should not have to pay the fee. Jesty said he hunted to maintain a traditional diet and to feed and clothe his family. ``I depend on on the use of my firearm as a tool, declared as my right in the Supreme Court of Canada Simon decision,'' he said in his application to the province's chief firearms officer. MacAdam said Jesty is entitled to have his application for fee waiver reconsidered under the regulation that offers relief to people who rely on their firearm for sustenance. Neither Jesty nor his lawyer could be reached for comment Tuesday. (Halifax Daily News) ------------------------------ End of Cdn-Firearms Digest V5 #724 ********************************** Submissions: mailto:cdn-firearms-digest@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca Mailing List Commands: mailto:majordomo@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca Moderator's e-mail address: mailto:akimoya@sprint.ca List owner: mailto:owner-cdn-firearms@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca FAQ list: http://www.magma.ca/~asd/cfd-faq1.html and http://teapot.usask.ca/cdn-firearms/Faq/cfd-faq1.html Web Site: http://teapot.usask.ca/cdn-firearms/homepage.html FTP Site: ftp://teapot.usask.ca/pub/cdn-firearms/ CFDigest Archives: http://www.sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca/~ab133/ or put the next command in an e-mail message and mailto:majordomo@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca get cdn-firearms-digest v04.n192 end (192 is the digest issue number and 04 is the volume) To unsubscribe from _all_ the lists, put the next five lines in a message and mailto:majordomo@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca unsubscribe cdn-firearms-digest unsubscribe cdn-firearms-alert unsubscribe cdn-firearms-chat unsubscribe cdn-firearms end (To subscribe, use "subscribe" instead of "unsubscribe".) If you find this service valuable, please consider making a tax-deductible donation to the freenet we use: Saskatoon Free-Net Assoc., P.O. Box 1342, Saskatoon SK S7K 3N9 Phone: (306) 382-7070 Home page: http://www.sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca/ These e-mail digests are free to everyone, and are made possible by the efforts of countless volunteers. Permission is granted to copy and distribute this digest as long as it not altered in any way.