Fentie steps into long gun registry issue

Yukon MP Larry Bagnell says he is doing everything he can to fight his party's 13-year-old gun registry.

Yukon MP Larry Bagnell says he is doing everything he can to fight his party’s 13-year-old gun registry.

He made that clear after the Star was copied in on a letter to him from Premier Dennis Fentie regarding two pieces of federal legislation aimed at killing the law demanding registration of hunting rifles.

“People in the territory pretty well know how hard I’ve been fighting this over the years,” Bagnell said Monday, adding he has yet to see the letter.

Last week, Fentie wrote Bagnell requesting that the MP persuade federal Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff to allow a free vote if and when a private member’s bill comes for consideration by the House of Commons in Ottawa.

“Can you assure Yukoners that you yourself as Yukon’s Member of Parliament will be voting to eliminate the long gun registry ...?” asks Fentie of Bagnell’s position on Bill C-301, an Act to Amend the Criminal Code and Firearms Act.

Bagnell says he views all letters from constituents as important. In early April, however, the Liberal MP told the Star how he would vote on Bill C-301 remains a hypothetical question.

And whether Bagnell, or any MP, will have a chance to vote on the bill remains to be seen.

On April 1, the federal Conservative government introduced the Long-Gun Registry Appeal Act (Bill S-5) in the Senate, a move viewed as a political play by opposition parties, while Prime Minister Stephen Harper called it a matter of expedience.

Facing a Liberal majority Senate, pundits predict Harper will use the bill’s eventual defeat as an election tool to galvanize the rural vote.

The Yukon’s new Conservative senator, Dan Lang, called putting the legislation in both parliamentary realms “a strategy” that would hasten a vote at some stage.

“Any bill that goes to the House of Commons has to go to the Senate (for approval) or vice-versa,” said Lang. “One way or another, someone will have to deliberate it.”

Lang also took a dim view of Ignatieff’s unwavering stance, reiterated at last weekend’s Liberal convention in Vancouver, that all firearms must be registered.

“It’s quite disconcerting listening to the Liberal leader take such a hard line on this,” Lang said.

“All facts point to the reality (the long gun registry) hasn’t worked and has cost a substantial amount of money.”

In 1995, the Firearms Act received Senate approval. It mandated harsher penalties for gun crimes and required gun owners to be licensed and registered.

The government maintained the registry would cost $119 million, but by way of registration fees the cost to taxpayers would be $2 million.

Seven years later (2002), following a lawsuit by Nunavut Tunngavik Inc. (a group representing Nunavut land claims beneficiaries who argued the law violates Inuit hunting rights) and word the registry was hundreds of millions of dollars over-budget, Auditor General Sheila Fraser reported the bill for gun registration would reach $1 billion by 2005.

In 2004, it was reported that bill now exceeded $2 billion.

Cost overruns aside, since the Firearms Act’s inception, northerners of all stripes have condemned the law as an unnecessary intrusion into their lifestyles; in particular first nations subsistence harvesting.

In 2003, Bagnell was absent from the House when the Liberals voted in favour of a major funding bill for the registry.

While some Yukoners criticized Bagnell, the MP said the vote was a confidence motion, and going against his party would have meant his expulsion from caucus.

Two weeks ago, Bagnell was the only opposition member to vote against a motion stating the government should not extend the amnesty on gun control requirements (waiving the registration fees), set to expire on May 16.

While the motion was non-binding, it did distinguish Bagnell’s position, which has been clouded by both partisan and regional politics throughout the registry’s short and costly history.

From Lang’s perspective, he’s not sure how the Senate will vote on Bill S-5 but with a Liberal majority, it’s not likely to succeed.

Either way, Lang agrees with Fentie: that members - Senate or House - should be permitted to vote with their constituents.

“I don’t understand why you’d make your members vote (one way or another) on an issue that really is riding to riding,” said Lang.