“Maybe
the Minister and her bureaucrats need an incentive program of their own.”
Ottawa
– This
week, the Honourable Peter Milliken, Speaker of the House of Commons, gave the
Justice Minister Anne McLellan and her bureaucrats a real dressing down.
Criticizing the Minister’s failure to comply with section 119(4) of the
Firearms Act on sixteen occasions over the last three years, Speaker
Milliken ruled, “Strictly speaking, these defects…point to a
carelessness that appears to be characteristic of the way in which these matters
are being handled by the officials in her department.
I would encourage the hon. Minister of Justice to exhort her officials
henceforth to demonstrate due diligence in complying with these and any other
statutory requirements adopted by parliament. I look forward in
future to the House being provided with documents required by law in a timely
manner.” [Hansard Page 7381] Speaker
Milliken was ruling on a Question of Privilege put forward on October 30th
by Canadian Alliance MP, Gurmant Grewal, MP for Surrey Central in B.C.
When
asked about the Justice Minister’s failure to comply with her own Firearms
Act, Garry Breitkreuz, the Official Opposition’s gun control critic,
commented, “The Minister has announced
‘incentive programs’ to try and get law abiding firearms owners to comply
with the Firearms Act, maybe she needs an incentive program to get her
own bureaucrats to comply with it.”
“I
was disappointed that the Minister was laughing when she left the House at the
start of the Speaker’s ruling. The
Minister treats her obligations under the Firearms Act lightly – what
if the rest of us did?” asked the Saskatchewan MP.
”While the Speaker ruled that the Minister’s ignorance of the
legislative requirements imposed on her by the Firearms Act on 16
occasions wasn’t contempt, I found her lack of respect in the House and the
Speaker contemptible. If
any other MP were accused of contempt of Parliament, I think most would be
interested in how the Speaker was going to rule.
But then again maybe she just doesn’t care about the legislative
requirements the Firearms Act imposes on her but only the ones it imposes
on millions of law abiding firearms owners.
Section
119(4) of the Firearms Act requires the Minister to table in Parliament a
Statement of Reasons why she decided to bypass Parliament with her amendments to
the Firearms Act. The
Minister finally filed her Statement of Reasons on November 5, 2001.
As my colleague, Gurmant Grewal, pointed out on October 30th,
“In four of these sixteen instances the reason for which the
amendment was not tabled was that the Minister of Justice formed an opinion that
the regulation was so urgent that section 118 should not apply. In the other
twelve cases the regulations were not tabled pursuant to section 118 because the
minister formed the opinion that the changes made were immaterial or
insubstantial.”
“The
Minister of Justice expects millions of law abiding firearms owners to comply
with the hundreds of pages of complex and confusing firearms laws or face
criminal sanctions if they don’t. Sadly,
as the Speaker’s ruling notes, the Minister doesn’t face any sanctions for
ignoring her own law even though she claims she is the single point of
accountability.” Breitkreuz concluded, “Maybe she would be more convincing
if she and her bureaucrats complied to the letter of the law themselves.
After all they wrote this mess.”
-30-
NOTE:
This
information is taken from the Statements of Reasons filed with the Clerk of the
House of Commons on November 5, 2001.
SEP
16, 1998
– JUS-600581, JUS-600583, JUS-600569 - SOR/98-203, SOR/98-214, SOR/98-211
REASON:
“so immaterial or insubstantial that section 118 should not be applicable
in the circumstances.”
SEP
24, 1998
– JUS-600672 – SOR/98-199 to SOR/98-203
REASON:
“so immaterial or insubstantial that section 118 should not be applicable
in the circumstances.”
MAR
04, 1999
– JUS-600894, JUS-600895, JUS-600896 – SOR/98-203, SOR/98-468, SOR/98-211,
SOR/98-214, SOR/98-469, SOR/98-470
REASON:
“so immaterial or insubstantial that section 118 should not be applicable
in the circumstances.”
NOV
18, 1999
– JUS-601090 – SOR/98-211, SOR/98-204
REASON:
“so immaterial or insubstantial that section 118 should not be applicable
in the circumstances.”
JUN
08, 2000
– JUS-601960 – SOR/98-199
REASON:
“so immaterial or insubstantial that section 118 should not be applicable
in the circumstances.”
JUN
08, 2000
– JUS-601895 – SOR/98-204
REASON:
“so urgent that section 118 should not be
applicable in the circumstances.”
JUN
15, 2000
– JUS-602034 – SOR/2000-224, SOR/98-204
REASON:
“so urgent that section 118 should not be
applicable in the circumstances.”
OCT
10, 2000
– JUS-602238 – SOR/2000-224, SOR/98-204
REASON:
“so urgent that section 118 should not be
applicable in the circumstances.”
DEC
13, 2000
- JUS-601239, JUS-602146, JUS-602141 - SOR/98-215, SOR/98-214, SOR/98-203, SOR/99-110
REASON:
“so immaterial or insubstantial that section 118 should not be applicable
in the circumstances.”
DEC
13, 2000
– JUS-602417 – SOR/2000-224, SOR/98-204
REASON:
“so urgent that section 118 should not be
applicable in the circumstances.”
JUN
12, 2001
– JUS-602963 – SOR/2001-12, SOR/98-204
REASON:
“so urgent that section 118 should not be
applicable in the circumstances.”