An Update on Bill C-68, the 1995 Firearms Act

DISARMING
an Imaginary Foe

The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary. —H.L. Mencken

The recent decision by the Alberta Supreme Court endorsing the federal government’s plan to register all firearms should alarm anyone who is concerned about individual rights and freedoms. This case is less about firearms than it is about the court’s eagerness to tolerate the federal government’s efforts to increase its powers to regulate and confiscate private property.

The Alberta Supreme Court split 3 to 2 in supporting the constitutionality of the Firearms Act of 1995 (Bill C-68). The question the court had to decide was whether the constitutional powers of the provinces to regulate private property could be pushed aside by the federal government through its criminal law powers. After the passage of Bill C-68 in 1995, four provinces (Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, and Ontario), plus both territories, challenged the constitutionality of the federal firearms registration.

Although four of the five Alberta justices agreed that the law did intrude upon provincial powers, two of these four thought that Ottawa’s claims were justified. Thus, combined with the one justice who had no reservations about Ottawa’s intrusiveness, a majority of the court supported Ottawa. The dissenting justices argued that the dangers of firearms paled in comparison with the danger of the federal government intruding into provincial jurisdiction. Alberta and three other provinces have already appealed this decision directly to the Canadian Supreme Court.

According to the Canadian constitution, the provinces have the power to regulate private property. For example, in addition to regulating firearms, the provinces also regulate the sales of alcohol and automobiles. Since more people are killed annually in incidents involving either cars or alcohol, why couldn’t Ottawa assert control over these areas as well? In a typical year, 3,400 people die in motor vehicle accidents, while around 50 people die from firearms accidents. Of the approximately 600 homicides each year in Canada, alcohol is implicated in about half of these; firearms are involved in less than one-third.

The provinces currently regulate all rifles and shotguns (97 percent of all firearms in Canada) through their hunting regulations. But in 1995, Ottawa decided it wanted to take over the regulation of firearms, claiming that they were so dangerous to the public peace they should be regulated under the criminal code. In addition to requiring Canadians to register all rifles and shotguns, “field and stream guns,” for the first time, Bill C-68 also arbitrarily prohibited and confiscated over 60 percent of all currently registered firearms in Canada. (These were almost all small handguns and even included several types of Olympic target pistols.) Moreover, Bill C-68 requires firearms owners to admit police or any other designated government “inspector” into their homes (or offices, or anywhere else) to check on their firearms or the required permits. The residents of the house are legally required to answer the inspector’s questions and to cooperate fully with the inspector. The residents may not remain silent. The inspector may also take copies of anything he or she wants—including computer records or files—to be used as evidence. When the police contact a person suspected of all other crimes (except the drug laws), there are certain procedures the police must follow to “search and/or seize” evidence. Suspects may remain silent and do not have to answer questions that may implicate them. None of this holds true with people suspected of violating firearms laws. Moreover, the firearms may not be found and the police may only have “suspected” them to have been there. The residents are still required to cooperate fully with the inspectors. Charges may be laid against the suspected firearms owners afterwards. (Note that no guns actually need to be found; all that is required is that the police suspect that someone has guns.)

Even if we put aside the quibble that the Firearms Act puts the government in the bizarre position of selling permits to break the criminal code, it is quite shocking to use the criminal code in this way. If the federal government is entitled to take control over any domain in the country simply by claiming that “ownership is potentially dangerous” to the public peace, no powers are left to the provinces.

Whether Canadians agree or disagree with the objectives of gun registration, they must be concerned about the process by which this is being achieved. As I have documented in a 1995 Fraser Institute Critical Issues Bulletin, Gun Control is not Crime Control, there is little reason to believe that gun registration will achieve the control over the criminal use of firearms that many desire. While registration won’t work, it will be very expensive.

In the past four years, Ottawa has slashed the RCMP budget by $174 million, and the total number of serving officers in the RCMP has declined. At the same time, the budget for firearms registration has escalated. In 1995, the Justice Minister of the day promised it would cost no more than $89 million to register all firearms in Canada. In 1998, the current Justice Minister, Anne McLellan admitted that the Department of Justice will spend $120 million in this fiscal year alone. And the government appears to be burying many of the expenditures in other budgets. The total spent so far is estimated to be at least $200 million, and may be more than $300 million.

So, gun registration will be expensive, ineffective and, with the court ruling, another excuse to centralize power. At the very least, this is a policy which deserves another close look.

info@fraserinstitute.ca You can contact us at the above email address for any comments or information requests. Please report any dead links or technical problems.

If you know someone who would be interested in this web page, please enter their email address below, and we will forward this URL to them: Email Address:

Last Modified: Wednesday, October 20, 1999.