The Oscar Lacombe Campaign Link Byfield responds to Alberta Justice Minister Dave Hancock On January 26, Alberta Justice Minister Dave Hancock responded to Link Byfield's earlier column which insisted that the Minister is responsible for charges being laid against Oscar Lacombe, and that the Minister should drop the charges immediately. Below is Minister Hancock's letter, with the Citizens Centre's comments interspersed in blue italics. BYFIELD SHOULD BE ASHAMED COLUMNIST IS SUGGESTING RULE OF LAW BE SUBVERTED The Calgary Sun Mon 26 Jan 2004 By Dave Hancock (comments by Citizens Centre in blue italics) 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. [Untrue. No Criminal Code charge can be prosecuted in Alberta except by an official representative of Alberta Justice. Oscar Lacombe's prosecutor identified herself in court as "an agent" for the Alberta government. Alberta Justice decided to prosecute Oscar Lacombe. It then appointed a federal prosecutor to do it.] Alberta Justice determined the matter was clearly an attempt to protest the federal firearms regime. That's why it was decided [by Alberta Justice] 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 is a meaningless sentence. Alberta is responsible for the prosecution of all Criminal Code offences in Alberta. Whether it gives its Ottawa agent free rein to charge Oscar Lacombe for failing to register his .22 rifle does not alter the fact that it is Alberta for whom she is acting.] 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. [No. We have argued that his other Criminal Code breaches were irrelevant, given that he was performing a safe, responsible protest, as Mr. Hancock himself appears to acknowledge in the preceding paragraph. Rather than taking Ottawa's side, Mr. Hancock's department should have told Justice Canada to charge Mr. Lacombe themselves under the Firearms Act for failure to register.] 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. [If the Firearms Act was badly drafted, why is Alberta covering for it? The act should be brought back into Parliament for further debate and amendment.] For that reason, Justice Canada elected to charge Lacombe under the Criminal Code. [Untrue. Justice Canada is not allowed to prosecute Oscar Lacombe or anyone else under the Criminal Code. That is the sole prerogative of the Alberta government. Justice Canada had no counsel in the courtroom. The two counsels present were Richard Fritze for Oscar Lacombe, and Michelle Doyle for Alberta Justice.] 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. [Untrue. The federal government has the power to charge Mr. Lacombe under the Firearms Act for failing to register his rifle. He was counting on Alberta Justice to make them do it, so he could challenge the Firearms Act under the Charter of Rights.] 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. [Here Mr. Hancock at last concedes that the prosecution is by Alberta, not Ottawa, and that he could prevent it.] 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. [Mr. Hancock's use of the term "political interference" is loaded. For instance, when he issues a statement saying he refuses to prosecute registry offences, is that political interference? No it is a simple statement of policy. When he borrows a federal employee to bring charges on his department's behalf, is that "political interference"? No, that is just being politically sneaky. What matters here is that Alberta has promised since 1998 not to prosecute rifle registry offences.] For obvious reasons, it is inappropriate for decisions involving criminal prosecutions to be made at a political level. [Ordinarily this is true. Obviously, however, the Lacombe case is extraordinary, requiring policy decisions from the top. That is why we put elected Justice Ministers in charge of the prosecution process.] 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. [The Constitution and the Criminal Code assign prosecutorial discretion to the provinces. Provinces are perfectly free to assign a very low priority to trivial or technical Criminal Code infractions such as Mr. Lacombe's - bringing a disarmed rifle to a small press conference in a vacant plaza in freezing weather with two days' courtesy notice to the police. Most provinces, moreover, have made it very clear they consider rifle licensing and registration to be an intrusive waste of public time and money. Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, the NWT and Yukon stated this in strong language in a joint submission to Parliament nine years ago. Judges will understand perfectly if the provincial attitude is, "You federal people have a Firearms Act. Enforce it yourselves. Our priority with the Criminal Code is to prosecute crimes, not harass our citizens for technical misdemeanours."] Alberta challenged the gun registry legislation in the Supreme Court of Canada -- to the fullest extent possible. [Untrue. They challenged it on the weakest grounds possible - jurisdictional rights - and ignored ten other grounds on which it could have been struck down under the Charter of Rights. It was a feeble effort, badly argued, and predictable in result.] 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. [Standard rhetoric, but it really amounts to, "We know it's a dumb law, but we prosecute it anyway."] 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. [In 1995 the Alberta government described the federal licensing of rifle owners as an unnecessary burden on police, ineffective at preventing crime, and a matter best left as optional for provinces that wanted to do it themselves. Now Mr. Hancock says the province supports federal licensing of owners but not federal registration of firearms. At what point did the government of Alberta change its mind and decide to split this legal hair?] 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. [After the government of Quebec served notice on Ottawa in 1982 that it would no longer enforce the abortion section of the Criminal Code, that section died within six years. It was struck down by the courts because it was being unequally applied across the country, and was never replaced by Parliament because it was too controversial. Similarly, if the provinces, led by Alberta, refused to enforce the rifle licensing and registry section of the Criminal Code (and stopped commissioning federal lawyers to do it for them), it would fatally weaken the Firearms Act. As with abortion, it would make the rifle registry unenforceable, first in the west and then across Canada.] This is where Byfield and all Albertans should focus their attention. [No, it isn't. It's time for the provincial government to stop posturing and play-acting, and start helping us defend ourselves from an abusive national government beyond our control.] Oscar Lacombe is doing his duty. We should all do ours. Email Alberta Premier Ralph Klein today! Use 1-Click Lobbyist to write Premier Klein today!   MORE INFORMATION Report Newsmagazine story on Oscar Lacombe Authorities on Legal Prosecution Legal Fact Sheet on the Case of Oscar Lacombe Firearms Act is Unconstitutional Link Byfield's commentaries in the Calgary Sun Exerpt from transcript of Oscar's Trial Letter from former Justice Minister Anne McLellan

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