Click the Logo For the Liberal Gunfarce Homepage
From: "CILA National Office" <[email protected]>Sent: Friday, February 21, 2003 11:21 AM
Report on the Parliamentary Committee on C-17
On Thursday, February 20th, I appeared before a Parliamentary Committee on Bill C-17, the Anti Terrorism Act. I specifically confined my comments to Section 5, Inexplosive Ammunition Components.
Also appearing at this hearing were Insp.. Watson, Director of Explosives Branch, Natural Resources Canada and Jim Hinter and Dave Tomlinson of NFA.
Insp.. Watson stated the reason for the inclusion of inexplosive ammunition components was to comply with the OAS treaty:
"INTER-AMERICAN CONVENTION AGAINST THE ILLICIT MANUFACTURING OF AND TRAFFICKING IN FIREARMS, AMMUNITION, EXPLOSIVES, AND OTHER RELATED MATERIALS"
Section 4 (Def.): "Ammunition": the complete round or its components, including cartridge cases, primers, propellant powder, bullets, or projectiles that are used in any firearm.
Insp. Watson was unable to answer any questions regarding the implementation of this treaty in the United States.
During my presentation I stated that this treaty had not been ratified in Canada or the US and while the US had implemented certain provisions (i.e.,import/export provisions) they had not implemented inexplosive ammunition components regulation, nor were likely to do so.
An M.P. asked if the U.N. was involved in any way or if the NRA had spent any money fighting this provision. Again, Insp. Watson was unable to answer.
I stated that the OAS Treaty for the basis for the Firearms Protocol section of the ECOSOC Trans-National Convention on Organized Crime, a protocol which we had clearly defeated at the 2001 Small Arms Summit in New York. I also stated that despite the defeat of that document, the government of Canada was "still beating it to death".
I explained to the Committee that my presentation was intended to be educational and to provide clarity to the Committee on the inexplosive ammunition components provisions. I told them I suspected the reasons the wording was so obtuse was to deliberately confuse the Committee and Parliament as to the intention of the legislation. (no where in the legislation is the OAS document mentioned).
I explained that some of these items had multiple uses such as aircraft and racing car ballast, fishing sinkers etc., and presented several legal scenarios where "unintended consequences" would come into play.
I demonstrated the lack of danger in these items saying "the only way to hurt yourself with this stuff is to drop it on your foot or eat it", and stated "we were unable to find one single instance where a terrorist group loaded its own ammunition". The Committee found this very amusing.
We passed around some components such as shotgun wads, empty shotshells, lead bullets and muzzleloader balls and that Committee was astounded that they were being asked to regulate such innocuous items. Members of the Committee played with the components such as throwing wads at each other while exclaiming "Ow, ow, don't hurt me!"
They (Liberals) stated that they saw no reason this provision should be included in anti-terrorist legislation and asked Insp. Watson several times if he felt this legislation should be "stand alone" so it could be "defeated on its own merits". He did not answer. After my presentation, I spoke with one of the Liberal M.P.s on the Committee and she just shrugged her shoulders and said, "what can I say". I stated she could say they were going to remove this portion of the Bill and she said, "Oh, I think that's a given".
All in all, I felt very good regarding the presentation and I believe the intent of the Committee is to remove the inexplosive ammunition section.
T. Bernardo
Executive Director
CILA
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Click Here for the full presentation (.pdf)