Update on Oscar Lacombe DAVE HANCOCK'S 2nd Letter regarding Oscar Lacombe... February 2004 Dear... Your e-mail to the Honourable Ralph Klein, Premier regarding the federal firearms registry and the prosecution involving former Sergeant-at-Arms Oscar Lacombe has been forwarded to my office for review and reply on behalf of the Government of Alberta. I want to be perfectly clear. The position taken by the Citizens Centre and Link Byfield is fundamentally incorrect and misrepresents the position of the Alberta Government. The Alberta Government has been and is a strong opponent of the federal gun registry and will continue to do everything it legitimately can to oppose it. To this end, we have established an MLA committee to review the actions we have taken thus far and to see what more can be done. There is nothing to be gained and much to lose in the ongoing fight against the registry when people like Mr. Byfield attempt to make the Alberta Government the enemy and detract from the focus in the federal government-the only government that can dismantle this ill-conceived, badly implemented concept. Byfield‘s focus is on the Oscar Lacombe case. While my ability to comment on that case is constrained because it is currently in court, I must respond strongly and emphatically to the allegation that Alberta is prosecuting Mr. Lacombe and to the absurd notion that a government ought to politically interfere with the prosecution of Criminal Code offences. Let me clarify why the Lacombe case has proceeded as it has. Following his protest on January 1, 2003, Mr. 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 had determined that, while Criminal Code charges were available and appropriate, the matter itself was clearly an attempt to protest the federal Firearms Act. Therefore, consistent with our policy directive to prosecutors on the matter of the gun registry, it was decided that it would be more appropriate for the federal government to defend its own legislation rather than place the Alberta government in a position of having to defend legislation it fundamentally opposes. The federal government prosecutors however, chose to lay the charges under the Criminal Code (section 89 – Carrying a weapon while attending a public meeting: section 91 possessing a firearm without license and a registration certificate). You suggest “Parallel charges are available under the Firearms Act.” That is not the case. In this case, the federal prosecutor chose section 91(1) Criminal Code because Mr. Lacombe is accused of having neither a license, nor a registration certificate. The Firearms Act, as drafted by the federal government, does not contain a licensing offence, nor does it duplicate the other Criminal Code provisions including section 89. As it alleged that Mr. Lacombe, in addition to not having a gun registered, also did not have a license, the federal prosecutors had a legitimate choice to utilize Criminal Code charges. However, it should be absolutely clear that Alberta Justice is not prosecuting these charges, nor is it directing Justice Canada, or influencing how they proceed. If it were possible for these charges to be laid under the Firearms Act, the provincial prosecution service would have insisted that, if the federal government determined to lay charges, they be laid under their Act, as has long been our policy. Some people have suggested that because prosecutions under the Criminal Code 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 Mr. Lacombe. I want to make it very clear that Alberta Justice cannot stay Criminal Code charges simply because we do not agree with or like the law. Without exception, case law has established that “blanket exemptions” or "suspending or dispensing with the law” is not an available option for an Attorney General. The courts have consistently repeated doing so is inconsistent with the constitutional obligation to uphold the law and amounts to “flagrant impropriety”. Such rulings have arisen in the context if contentious issues such as narcotics, environmental, and hunting rights prosecutions. These are issues on which people had strong and competing views on the law. However, the courts have been clear that simply not liking or agreeing with the law does not somehow provide a power of exemption. In these cases, the law should, and must be repealed by the Parliament of Canada. The enforcement of the law cannot depend on the personal beliefs and whim of an individual Attorney General or government. Neither the courts nor Alberta Justice permit decisions to be made on the basis that the law will be applied to some and not others, or that the law will be ignored because and individual in high office chooses to ignore it. Prosecutions must not be tainted by political decisions. This is why the independence of the prosecution service is a cornerstone of an effective justice system. I emphasize that the government and I retain our opposition to the federal registry legislation. I emphasize that all legitimate means to oppose that legislation have and will be taken. Individuals or groups may pursue legitimate means to do the same including Charter challenge. We will not defend the registry legislation-that is for the federal government to do. I’d like to remind you that Alberta challenged the gun registry legislation in the Supreme Court of Canada-to the fullest extent possible. Unfortunately, the court ruled against us. We continue to oppose the registry as not only a huge waste of money, but as an unnecessary system that does not contribute to safe communities. That is why 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 licensing 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. Our position remains that the federal government should concentrate on dealing with serious and violent crimes, rather than investing countless public dollars in a ineffective and oppressive registry system. We are pleased to finally hear that the federal government is going to undertake a review of this ineffective and costly mess of a registry and will be pressing them to allow the provinces to be part of this review. I hope that the above information is useful to you clarifying the position of the Government of Alberta. Yours truly, Dave Hancock, QC

HOME | ABOUT | COMMENTARY | EVENTS | NEWS | REFEDERATION | PUBLICATIONS SUPPORT | DISCUSS | LINKS | CONTACT | SEARCH | GUESTBOOK