MP Motz has made his point over gun bill
Local MP Glen Motz feels the point has been made that parliament itself is the final authority on pending legislation, but he still wants to see action to avoid mistakes like one that spurred committee hearings this week in Ottawa.
Last spring, Motz petitioned the House speaker to rule on whether the RCMP was in contempt of parliament when bulletins put out on Bill C71 didn’t clearly explain that changes to gun laws were still only proposals being discussed by lawmakers.
Speaker Geoff Regan agreed and hearings this week heard from Motz, RCMP officials and Public Safety Minister Ralph Goodale.
Goodale said Thursday that the statements from the RCMP were “an honest mistake,” and suggested the committee develop “standing advice” for how bureaucrats looking to inform the public of the effects of proposed laws can better preface the information.
“The bigger issue has always been about the authority of parliament and democracy,” Motz told the News on Friday.
“Sometimes a majority government and bureaucracy leaves the impression that bills will pass as is, and (the process) doesn’t really matter.”
The bulletin in question informed retail gun sellers that a rapidly approaching date of June 30 would be crucial to registering two types of rifles, according to the proposed legislation. That hadn’t passed yet, was still open to amendments, and Motz said gun owners were left thinking they could already be breaking a law — a law that had not yet passed.
Canadian Firearms Program director Rob O'Reilly said his office would prefer not to comment at all on pending legislation, but changes to gun ownership laws always garner public interest, so answers are prepared ahead of time.
“As you can appreciate there have been three firearm bills since 2012 … We’re very aware and attempt to respect the parliamentary process,” said O’Reilly.
“The experience is that the minute a piece of legislation is in the media, we get calls, so we don’t have the luxury of not preparing for Q and A’s.”
Goodale said there was no intention to mislead Canadians from his office.
“This is not the first time that a government has stumbled over the issue and that applies to governments of all political stripes,” he said. “Perhaps it would be useful for the committee to offer technical guidance to how when public servants prepare information that anticipates legislation that is not yet approved.”
Committee vice-chair David Christopherson told the committee that it’s a crucial question of how bureaucracy interacts with political actors to advise the public of policy changes which can be political.
“In this case the lines have crossed,” he said. “I think there’s merit in pursuing it further, even if it’s to suggest some language about keeping these things separate.
“But I think we’ve reached the end of the road on this.”