Ottawa has a duty to fight Quebec’s ruling on the gun registry
CALGARY — Before legislation to scrap the long-gun registry — a campaign promise by the federal Conservatives that was fulfilled last April — even made its way to the Senate, the government of Quebec wanted to get its hands on the Quebec data to establish its own registry.
When the legislation was enacted, Quebec immediately launched a court challenge to stop the data, affecting more than 1.5 million long guns registered by Quebecers, from being destroyed.
Last week, the province won the first instalment of its court challenge. A Quebec court ordered the federal government to surrender the data within 30 days. Ottawa announced this week that it will appeal the ruling.
The federal legislation, Bill C-19, stops lawful owners from having to register long weapons; it also relaxes requirements around selling or transferring them. It is not an abandonment of federal responsibility over criminal matters. Firearm licences and the registry for restricted and prohibited firearms such as pistols are still in place.
Those who favour preserving the registry’s data involving Quebecers typically appeal to three arguments.
Ironically, the first, but perhaps most valid, is a constitutional argument once used against the creation of the federal registry. According to Quebec Superior Court Justice Marc-André Blanchard, who issued last week’s order to Ottawa, the feds must not invoke jurisdiction over criminal law to overstep the provincial power over property.
“We have here an abusive use of criminal-law jurisdiction to encroach onto a domain of provincial jurisdiction,” Blanchard said. But it’s abitlate for that. The Supreme Court of Canada originally blessed the federal registry on account of its federal criminal jurisdiction. Blanchard wants to have the constitutional cake and eat it, too.
The second argument is about saving money. Former Quebec public security minister Robert Dutil said that Quebec should be given the data it paid for. But paying for something in matters such as this doesn’t entitle one to have them. We cannot demand ownership of Canadian Forces equipment because we pay taxes, any more than Alberta could demand ownership of — well, so much in Quebec.
Finally, there is a sad sense that governments make legislation strictly to honour people. Allan Rock, then the federal justice minister, was so successful at marrying the legislation to the 1989 Polytechnique massacre that some misguidedly wish to keep it, seeing the law as a memorial to the victims.
None of these are convincing arguments.
Besides compelling the federal government to hand over the data it has, the Quebec court decision also forces it to keep registering long guns and recording transfers of ownership for Quebecers until such time as it fully submits the database to the province. Blanchard’s respect for constitutional jurisdictions cuts one way only. While he wants Ottawa not to impose on Quebec, he is just fine with Quebec imposing on Ottawa.
It’s true that the Constitution grants provinces jurisdiction over property, which is why we register our dwellings and our vehicles through provinces. In fact, forcing Quebecers to register their long weapons with a provincial authority is not unconstitutional.
But nowhere does it say that the feds have to help. Not unlike in fiscal matters, Quebec is claiming autonomy, but wants to force the help of those it claims autonomy from in the same breath.
Prime Minister Stephen Harper is a firm believer in strong provincial rights. But he also believes in individual rights. While the Quebec government is the government of Quebecers, as long as the province remains in Canada the Canadian Parliament has a duty to protect its citizens residing in Quebec. Should Ottawa willingly help Quebec impose greater controls over those Canadians?
Ottawa cannot stop Quebec from doing what it does, but it has no obligation to help.
It has a duty to fight the court order.