There has been considerable debate recently in Canada over the issue of gun
control. The Canadian parliament enacted the Firearms Act to enforce gun control
by requiring gun owners to register their firearms. Just recently, the
government of Alberta lead in a charge, including five other provinces and
numerous pro-gun groups, complaining that the law is unconstitutional and
intrudes on provincial jurisdiction. They also claim that the act infringes on
property and civil rights that are guaranteed in the Canadian Charter of Rights
and Freedoms. Parliament contends that the government of Canada is within its
rights to protect public safety. Pro-gun control organizations, police chiefs
and the City of Toronto also back the Firearms Act. The enacting of the Firearms
Act by the government of Canada is legitimately constitutional and is within the
jurisdiction of Parliament as it only seeks to protect the well being of
Canadians. Furthermore, this legislation does not intrude on provincial
jurisdiction because it is a representation of all Canadian’s rights. The
Canadian law that requires the licensing and registration of handguns has been
around since the 1930’s. The new statute, enacted in 1995 is currently under
heated debate, the act extends the licensing and registration requirements to
shotguns and rifles. Wendy Cukier, president of the Coalition for Gun Control
says, “More Canadians are killed with rifles and shotguns every year than with
handguns”. The ultimate purpose of the Act according to the government is to
reduce firearm offences and violent crimes including murder. Moreover, Cukier
believes the real issue is saving lives, as licensing and registration help make
gun owners more accountable. She also points out a list of kids killed with
firearms- a boy shot at a birthday party, a Grade 3 student shot as his twin
played with a rifle. Gun control advocates may also highlight some other
incidents involving firearms including the 1989 massacre at Montreal’s Ecole
Polytechnique that claimed the lives of fourteen women and the recent school
shooting that killed a fifteen-year old student. Ironically, the shooting
occurred at a Taber, Alberta high school, the same province that is leading a
fight to strike down the Firearms Act as unconstitutional. On February 21 and 22
of this year, the Supreme Court of Canada was asked to rule whether the toughest
gun control laws ever passed in Canada was unconstitutional. The previously
mentioned incidents involving firearms were used to boost the case for gun
control advocates, including police chiefs, health and victims’ groups and the
City of Toronto. Lawyers for the provinces involved and several pro-gun
organizations claimed that “federal legislation does nothing to make Canadians
safer”. Furthermore, they denounced the law as “an intrusion on provincial
jurisdiction”. On the other hand, Graham Garton, lawyer for the federal
government, told the hearing that anti-gun control talk “makes for good
provincial politics”. He says, “I think it’s clear that Alberta and the
challengers have come forward with a political argument dressed up as a legal
argument and the clothes just don’t fit.” Roderick McLennan, lawyer for the
Alberta government, countered that statement saying, “I don’t think we’re
putting forward a political argument at all.” The provinces against the
legislation argue that the 1995 statute invades provincial jurisdiction over
property and civil rights. The government of Alberta claims that: "Only
Canada, the Women's Shelters and the Coalition (for gun control) argue that the
Firearms Act and related provisions under the Criminal Code are, in their
entirety, within the constitutional power of Parliament. All of the other
interveners, with the exception of Ontario, support Alberta's position that the
licensing and registration provisions infringe on the province's jurisdiction in
relation to "property and civil rights" [under s.92 (13) of the
Constitution Act, 1867] to the extent that they relate to "ordinary
firearms". They argue that the impugned licensing and regulation provisions
are, in their essence, about regulation of property "simpliciter" and
not about public safety or crime prevention. The government counters that it can
use its criminal law powers to try to protect the safety of Canadians. The
comparison between firearms and motor vehicles can further illustrate this
point. Like firearms, motor vehicles are registered and licensed to owners to
protect the private property of the owners and others. Moreover, owning and
using a firearm is a privilege, as is driving a motor vehicle. If the owner can
prove his or her car is registered and he or she is licensed, the individual has
nothing to hide since it can be proven that the vehicle is not stolen or was
ever used to commit a crime. However, Bruce Hutton, president of the
15,000-member Law Abiding Unregistered Firearms Association says, “The
government is saying to me, in essence, you have the potential to be a criminal,
therefore you have to register your gun. I resent that.” He goes on to say,
“There’s no question that registration is the first step towards
confiscation” and “registration means a huge, expensive bureaucracy and does
not improve public safety because it won’t stop criminals from getting
guns.” On the other hand, to gun control advocates, Hutton seems to be seeking
only his self -interests and not the interests of the entire population. Even
the name of the organization Hutton belongs to seems to contradict itself. If
the members of this organization were actually law-abiding, then they would have
their firearms registered and thus, would earn the right to be called the
"Law Abiding Registered Firearms Association.” Registering and licensing
a firearm does not automatically incriminate a person, but merely protects the
owner from being accused of a firearm offence and protects registered owners if
the gun is stolen. The government of Alberta argued that, “Firearms have a
different value, meaning and role based on your way of life, where you live in
Canada and whether you come from a rural or urban setting.” They go on to say,
“Someone living in rural Alberta or a remote village in the Northwest
Territories will generally have far different experiences with firearms than
residents of Metro Toronto or Montreal.” The Province adds, “These
differences should be respected.” These attitudes opposing the Firearms Act
seem to be blinded by the fact that the real issue of the Statute is saving
lives and not preserving a gun culture of a particular region regardless of any
traditional way of life. Furthermore, firearms have the potential to kill;
therefore, they should be considered as special property whereby registry will
be part of the law. The gun control debate is undoubtedly a controversial issue.
On one side, gun control advocates, victim’s groups, police chiefs, and the
City of Toronto believe that the regulation and licensing of firearms is
necessary in order to maintain a peaceful society. The other side, however,
including several provinces lead by Alberta, believe that the Firearms Act is
unconstitutional because the registration and licensing provisions infringe on
their property and civil rights. Those who are pro-gun further believe that
their culture traditionally used firearms and that the government should not
interfere with their “way of life”. Honourable Chief Justice Fraser of the
Alberta Court of Appeal explains the paradox of this debate and why it is so
controversial: “Guns preserve lives; guns employ people; guns are used for
legitimate recreational pursuits; and guns are the tools of some trades. At the
same time, guns intimidate; guns maim; and guns kill. It is precisely because of
this paradox that guns are used for good as well as evil- that controversy
surrounds government efforts at gun control.” It is clear that the new
firearms legislation is looking out only for the best interests of the citizens
of Canada. Public safety and well-being undoubtedly takes precedence to a
traditional gun culture. The argument by pro-gun advocates that licensing and
registering firearms will turn them into criminals is invalid since guns have
the potential to seriously injure and kill people and thus, should be treated
with caution and special care. The Firearms Act enacted by the government of
Canada should be considered as a positive notion and not as a law that invades
on property and civil rights. The reason why Canada is a safe country is all due
to our strict gun control laws. Moreover, if this statute was struck down as
unconstitutional, there is no doubt in my mind that Canada would head towards a
gun culture society that would inevitably lead to more violent crime and murders
involving firearms.