Law Times

Law TiMes • May 14, 2012 control officers who keep regis- tering gun sales under the law in their provinces. Toews and Prime Minister P T ublic Safety Minister Vic Toews has gone to a war of sorts against provincial firearms oews, cops at war over gun data COMMENT u The Hill Stephen Harper made a big mistake in thinking that by abolishing the federal gun reg- istry, it would be the end of reg- istered rifles and shotguns across Canada. They forgot about provincial laws that were around decades before the federal registry came into force. Now they're stuck with the gun lobby on their backs that despises any sort of registry whether it' same rich and powerful lobby that voted overwhelmingly for the Conservatives in the last election. It' s federal or provincial. This is the wants to rile up. But right now, the gun lobby is raising a s not a base the government big stink. The gun people feel Harper and his government have tricked them. Toews has to act to put out the brush fire before it becomes a full-scale conflagration. He doesn't oversee provincial firearms offi- cers but he does control the RCMP. That' where Toews has acted. He wrote a letter to RCMP commissioner Bob Paulson telling him that the federal law overrides the pro- vincial legislation allowing firearms officers to do their work. Toews writes that provincial firearms s officers are attempting to collect point-of- sale data on who' Mountie boss the provincial officers "are no s buying guns. He tells the longer authorized to collect" this sort of information. In his view, the provinces are trying to create a backdoor registry, something he won't stand for. The Ontario Provincial Police he wants to keep his job. Paulson is no dummy. He simply copied Richard Cleroux information about who's buying guns in have a different interpretation of the law than Toews has. They don't take orders from him. OPP Supt. Chris Watt said on TV recently that his people would go right on collecting personal Ontario. They keep the information in huge ledgers. The ledgers list the make, model, and serial number of every gun sold, as well as the name, address, and firearms licence number of every gun owner. That' the sort of stuff Toews' gun owners don't want the cops to have on them. The cops, on the other hand, know the s precisely value of going to court when they have the make, model, and serial number of the gun used in a shooting, as well as the name and firearms licence number of the accused in the incident. When they match, it' ful information. Watt, then, is adamant. He has no inten- tion to cease and desist. "It's in the interests s very use- of public safety to ensure that firearms aren't being sold to criminals or persons who are prohibited from having firearms." So what will happen? The RCMP' Paulson isn't about to tell his people to go out and start arresting Ontario firearms offi- cers, especially not when his Mounties were among the most frequent users of the federal gun registry that Toews abolished. On the other hand, Paulson can't disobey his boss if s the Toews letter to provincial firearms chiefs. Paulson isn't about to get caught in the mid- dle of Toews' little war against gun registries. Quebec has taken a different approach. It's taking Toews and Harper to court — all the way to the Supreme Court if necessary — to win the right to keep possession of all of the gun ownership information it collected for the federal registry. In the meantime, the Sûreté du Québec has kept right on collecting full data on gun owners and their weapons. It should be quite a legal battle when it gets to the courts. Toews is adamant as well. Collecting information on gun owners and their weapons is "wasteful and ineffective, says. But try telling that to the govern- ments of the two most populous prov- inces and their police forces. Not to be deterred, Toews gives clear " he advice to the Mounties: "If it comes to your attention that chief firearms officers are interpreting the Firearms Act as a basis for unauthorized data collection, please advise me immediately. I am prepared to consider all legislative and regulatory measures neces- sary to give effect to the will of Canadians." It seems the Conservatives mean busi- ness when it comes to taking away the rights of cops to gather information on gun owners and their weapons. We can now eagerly wait for what the courts have to say on the matter. LT uRichard Cleroux is a freelance reporter and columnist on Parliament Hill. His e-mail address is richardcleroux@rogers.com. PAGE 7 CORRESPONDENCE EDITORIAL THINK OUTSIDE THE BOX Hiring an articling student should be thought of as a moral obligation of licensed practitioners. However, if that obligation becomes an economic burden that affects the finances and time of the principal, the law society should find a way to level the equation, particularly for sole practitioners. Why not consider further incentives Comment on lawtimesnews.com by Alan about "Articling crisis gets worse. " GRADS FEEL ENTITLED This is an artificial crisis fed by law grads' sense of entitlement to practice where they want to as opposed to where they are needed. I am certain that there are posi- tions that go unfilled in Ontario because they require a move to a less desirable town outside the Toronto-Kingston- Ottawa corridor. We know that small-town and rural practices are dying for students and young associates. Why aren't we hearing about that in this article? It' aren't jobs; it's that there aren't enough s not that there jobs in Toronto to satisfy these grads. So move to where the jobs are even if it means leaving Ontario. Be creative and proactive just like you in terms of a waiver of membership fees? Think outside the box. need to be in order to be a good lawyer and stop feeding this sense of entitlement. Comment on lawtimesnews.com by Karen about "Articling crisis gets worse. " BY SHEILA MacKINNON For Law Times A Anti-bullying bill contains glaring holes u SPEAKER'S CORNER tion contains glaring holes. Last Nov. 30, the Ontario government introduced nti-bullying legislation directed at inci- dents in schools is getting a lot of atten- tion in Ontario. While lots of people are talking about the issue, the proposed legisla- bill 13, the accepting schools act, that gained consid- erable traction following the suicides of two young people. Jamie Hubley was a 15-year-old student who took his life after being targeted for his sexual orienta- tion. The boy was the son of an Ottawa city council- lor. The other suicide involved Mitchell Wilson, an 11-year-old in Pickering, Ont., who suffered from muscular dystrophy. Tory MPP Elizabeth Witmer, a former minister of education who recently resigned her seat in Kitchener- Waterloo, proposed her own legislation through bill 14, the anti-bullying act, on the same day the government introduced bill 14. The government had initially aimed to have bill 13 become law on Sept. 1, 2012. However, bell- ringing tactics by Ontario Conservative MPPs helped delay the debate on bill 13. Both bills 13 and 14 are now before the standing committee on social policy and there' a move afoot to merge the two. The committee will be holding public hearings in Toronto and Ottawa. Clearly, there' tors to get tough with bullies. Let' s nate because bullying is a serious problem in Ontario schools that the government should address. It' that this is new. But what's new is an attempt by legisla- s politicking going on. That's unfortu- s not s have a look at bill 13. The wording is such that it's largely targeting discrimination and bullying spe- cific to sexual orientation. While that's fine and good, the bill has some glaring holes. For example, what about the kid who gets relent- lessly teased about his red hair to the point where going to school becomes a nightmare? or other social media channels to the extent that they can't look another student in the eye? And what about the student bullied by a teacher or, for that matter, the teacher bullied by a student? There' address these situations. But all of these things happen in schools and it might be naive to think that legisla- tion is going to put an end to such abuse. What' s nothing in the proposed legislation to there will be consequences when teasing becomes bullying. And this, of course, begs the question as to where to draw the line. It all goes back to the fact that we can't really legislate behaviour. Bill 13 defines bullying to be repeated and aggres- s important, however, is that people know What about the kids attacked on Facebook, Twitter the perpetrator commits a very serious act and it' legislation become law in order to protect gay stu- dents. On the other hand, many Catholic parents are against bill 13 because they feel it goes against Catholic teachings in schools and could prevent students from expressing their religious views. In fact, one group of Catholic parents has already staged a protest at Queen' pended with no consideration of expulsion? This is a political football now. Gay-rights advocates want to see the proposed government s only a first offence? Should they only be sus- Park. Their major concern is that the accepting schools act would require school boards, including Catholic ones, to support students who want to form support groups along the lines of gay-straight alliances. Bullying at school isn't an issue specific to Ontario. s Anti-bullying legislation has also taken root in Quebec, Alberta, New Brunswick, and Newfoundland. In an ideal world, the school climate wouldn't allow sive behaviour by a pupil where the actions aim to cause, or the student ought to know that they would be likely to cause, harm, fear or distress to another individual, including psychological harm or harm to the person' iour must occur in a context where there's a real or s reputation. At the same time, the behav- perceived power imbalance between the pupil and the individual based on factors such as size, strength, age, intelligence, peer group power, economic status, social status, religion, ethnic origin, sexual orientation, fam- ily circumstances, gender, race, disability or the receipt of special education. As for the consequences, bill 13 says that students who bully may face expulsion. It proposes an amend- ment to subsection 310(1) of the Education Act and adds a provision for bullying if the pupil has previ- ously been suspended for engaging in bullying and the student' unacceptable risk to the safety of someone else. That one could be a problem. For example, what if s continuing presence in the school creates an www.lawtimesnews.com becomes law, the government will be content in the belief that it has well and truly solved the problem. Of course, that won't be the case. We don't need window- dressing legislation. What we need is for the govern- ment to allocate sufficient funding to school boards and other social agencies for effective anti-bullying programs and for addressing any underlying mental- health issues of students who engage in bullying. LT firm's education and public law group and has been uSheila MacKinnon is a lawyer in the Windsor, Ont., office of Shibley Righton LLP. She' s a member of the involved in issues such as access requests under pri- vacy laws, as well as privacy complaints, suspensions, expulsions, investigations under internal board policies, school board governance, workplace employment poli- cies, and human rights matters. She represents school boards throughout Ontario. bullying at all. But passing legislation is one thing; truly changing behaviours is another. The risk is that once bill 13 or any other legislation

• Cover