NEWS RELEASE 

November 23, 2001                                                                                              For Immediate Release

COMPLIANCE WITH THE FIREARMS ACT IS EVEN A PROBLEM FOR THE JUSTICE DEPT.

“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-


 

MINISTER’S REASONS FOR BYPASSING PARLIAMENT 16 TIMES OVER THREE YEARS

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.”