PUBLICATION: The Calgary Sun
DATE:
2004.01.26
EDITION:
Final
SECTION:
Editorial/Opinion
PAGE:
15
BYLINE:
DAVE HANCOCK
COLUMN:
Guest Column
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BYFIELD
SHOULD BE ASHAMED
COLUMNIST
IS SUGGESTING RULE OF LAW BE SUBVERTED
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm
compelled to respond to the false allegations being spread by Link Byfield in
his recent columns and to denounce his absurd suggestion that the government and
the Attorney General should politically interfere in the prosecution of Criminal
Code offences.
Following
his protest on Jan. 1, 2003, Oscar Lacombe was charged by the police under the
Criminal Code on the advice of Justice Canada.
Alberta
Justice was not a party to that decision. Alberta Justice determined the matter
was clearly an attempt to protest the federal firearms regime. That's why it was
decided it would be more appropriate for Justice Canada to handle this case,
rather than put the Alberta government in a position of defending legislation it
fundamentally opposes. This was consistent with the province's policy on
firearms prosecutions.
Byfield
suggests that parallel charges are available under the Firearms Act. This is
false.
The
Firearms Act, as drafted by the federal government, contains neither a licencing
offence, nor an offence for possessing a weapon at a public meeting. For that
reason, Justice Canada elected to charge Lacombe under the Criminal Code.
If
it were possible for charges to be laid under the Firearms Act, the provincial
prosecution service would have insisted on this, if the federal government was
determined to lay charges in this case.
Byfield
and others have suggested that, because Criminal Code prosecutions are within
provincial jurisdiction, we should have denied the federal prosecutor the
authority to proceed or that we should intervene to stop the prosecution of
Lacombe.
Byfield
should be ashamed of himself for asking the Alberta government and specifically
me, as Attorney General, to subvert the rule of law and politically interfere in
a case. Under most circumstances, he would be the first on his soapbox if there
was a hint of political interference in the justice system. Yet he is prepared
to promote this type of behaviour when it satisfies his political agenda.
For
obvious reasons, it is inappropriate for decisions involving criminal
prosecutions to be made at a political level.
The
courts have strongly rejected instances when laws are applied to some and not
others, or ignored altogether because those in office choose to ignore them.
Such actions would also be contrary to our constitutional obligation to uphold
Canadian law.
Alberta
challenged the gun registry legislation in the Supreme Court of Canada -- to the
fullest extent possible. Unfortunately, the court ruled against us.
Alberta
continues to oppose the registry not only as a huge waste of money, but as an
unnecessary system that does not contribute to safe communities.
I've
appointed an MLA committee to audit everything we have done to date and
recommend any new legitimate actions we might take. This is still a very
important issue for our government, but we cannot subvert the law for political
purposes.
To
be clear, Alberta Justice will not prosecute gun owners whose only offence is a
failure to comply with the federal gun registry.
Our
prosecutors will continue to handle licencing offences as we've always done, as
well as those offences that adversely affect community safety, such as the use
of a firearm in the commission of another offence.
As
always, decisions on all cases are made by Alberta's prosecution service,
independent of political influence.
For
his own political reasons, Byfield is attacking the Alberta government. This
criticism is misdirected. Only the federal government can abolish the registry
and change legislation to prevent Canadians from being charged with possessing
an unregistered firearm.
This
is where Byfield and all Albertans should focus their attention.