Gunning for Ottawa

PERHAPS we should have a tea party next.

After all, Atlantic Canada is in a state of open rebellion against the federal Crown. Last month, Newfoundland Premier Roger Grimes declared his province would not help Ottawa prosecute fishermen who defied the federal closure of the cod fishery. This month, Nova Scotia announced it would take no part in prosecuting citizens who refuse to register their rifles and shotguns.

Whether they're washing their hands of the Fisheries Act or the Firearms Act, both governments have ulterior motives. They're in pre-election mode, when seizing upon a populist issue never hurts.

It was telling that Justice Minister Jamie Muir chose to make his announcement on Tuesday in his Truro riding, flanked by a handful of other rural Conservatives. It had the unmistakable air of Team Tory on the campaign trail.

Bashing the long-gun registry - the biggest soft target in the country - and the Ottawa political class that wasted millions on it is a vote-rich exercise.

But in practical terms, Mr. Muir's decision is not particularly useful. It won't change much for recalcitrant gun owners, who will simply end up facing federal prosecutors instead of provincial ones. The cases will still take up space in Nova Scotia court dockets. And the interests of the average Nova Scotian will be no better served. Mr. Muir argues the province's overstretched public prosecution service doesn't need to be wasting time and money on peccadillos like failing to register your gun, when their talents would be better applied to dealing with more serious crimes. A valid point.

But shifting the burden to the two dozen federal prosecutors at the Atlantic regional office in Halifax doesn't solve the problem. They have major cases to deal with too, from drugs to proceeds of crime, so attention might be diverted from prosecuting more serious offences regardless. Let Ottawa hire more staff then, goes the counterargument. At the end of the day, however, there is still only one taxpayer.

The Firearms Act may be a deeply flawed piece of legislation, but this is not the way to go about repealing it. It is never a good idea for a justice minister, who in this case is also the attorney general responsible for enforcing the Criminal Code, to appear to be subverting it. It simply encourages citizens to cherry-pick which "bad" laws they will choose to obey or not.

Granted, Mr. Muir cautions that normal weapons offences under the Criminal Code will continue to be prosecuted in Nova Scotia "to the full extent of the law."

And granted, there are always sections of the Criminal Code - usually antiquated or obscure ones - which attorneys general instruct their prosecutors not to bother with. But they generally don't go about holding press conferences advertising it. Prosecutorial discretion is simply exercised with little fanfare.

In some ways, Mr. Muir's decision might complicate things in the trenches.

Criminal law in Canada is a jurisdictional jumble at best. Parliament writes the Criminal Code and the provinces are responsible for enforcing it. But there is also a whack of federal statutes appended to the Criminal Code, like the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, which Ottawa takes the lead in enforcing. People can be charged under the Criminal Code or a related statute, or both. For the sake of simplicity in handling the overlap, federal and provincial prosecutors often turn files over to each other. "There is a sharing back and forth of mandate and responsibility," says Glenn Chamberlain, spokesman for the federal Crown attorneys.

It won't be any easier now to sort the wheat from the chaff, especially since some aspects of the Firearms Act fall under the Criminal Code and others don't. The salvo Mr. Muir fired off on Tuesday was an attention-grabber. Too bad he was shooting blanks.