web posted June 1997
Federal Justice Minister Interferes with Justice!
The federal Justice Minister Allan Rock forced the Alberta Fish and Game Association's (AFGA) original team of lawyers to resign the AFGA as their client on the Alberta government led constitutional challenge to Bill C-68, the gun control bill.
When the AFGA was granted intervener status by the Alberta courts in
December of 1996, it retained a law firm that was well recommended to
them. Shortly thereafter, Justice Canada advised the firm that they would
It was not until Justice Minister Allan Rock personally intervened that the AFGA was advised that they would have to find a new team. The suggestion was that if they did not withdraw from the case, that not only would the firm loose the special drug prosecution cases, but they would also find themselves being subject to a review of their actions by the Law Society.
Once again Rock proves that the law is secondary to his whims and desires. Here is a letter sent out by AFGA about the case:
May 13, 1997
This is something that not only all firearms owners should know about, but also something all Canadians should know.
It is the sad story of to what extremes the Liberal government and Allan Rock will go to shut down any opposition to Bill C-68.
As many of you know, the Alberta Fish and Game Association (AFGA) has been granted intervenor status on the constitutional challenge before the Supreme Court of Alberta that the province of Alberta and five other governments have issued against the federal government's Bill C-68.
When the AFGA was granted intervenor status, we employed a team a lawyers that we were familiar with. It was a large, well diversified law firm which had ample resources for dealing with the intricacies involving a complicated case such as this.
Here is what happened. Within 10 days of the AFGA engaging the firm, they got a phone call from the Regional Director of Western Canada for Justice. The regional director told the legal firm that they were to fire the AFGA as a client. The reason he gave us was that Justice Canada considered the firm to be in conflict as that firm did some special federal drug prosecution cases.
The firm told that regional manager in uncertain terms that they were not in agreement and they would not drop us as a client.
The next day, the Deputy Minister of Justice from Ottawa called, and again told them the same thing. Again, the firm told the Deputy Minister in no uncertain terms that they did not feel they were in conflict and they would not drop us.
Within an hour, the Justice Minister, Allan Rock himself phone the senior partners of the firm and told them that they will drop the AFGA as a client, and, if they did not, that, not only would they lose any federal government work that they were doing, but also, Rock would ensure that they would be called before the Alberta Bar Society and a judicial review would be instituted on the firm. No legal firm can afford the expense and possible consequences that result from such actions. Out lawyer called me into his office, and, with an extreme amount of embarrassment, advised me that he would have to fire us as a client. He was visibly upset about this situation, and told me that in 20 years of practice, had never had this type of pressure or situation before. (We still use him for other non-C-68 matters).
He arranged our file to be transferred to a firm that specializes solely in constitutional law. They have done an exemplary job to date and we have a huge amount of confidence in their ability.
Rock threatened the AFGA with all sorts of audits if we did not drop out intervenor status. Is is right that Rock can threaten to have the AFGA's charitable status pulled if we did not drop the case?
Is the kind of government and leadership we want...one based on threats, rather than letting justice take its court? The AFGA can accept court decisions that might go against it, it can not accept the federal Minister of Justice interfering with the court and justice system to further his aims.
The AFGA is under threat of losing its charitable status. We are spending money on financing this court case that we don't have. We are very careful to ensure that we do not give any charitable receipts for donations to this fight, and we are well within legislative limits on expenditures on activities that may be construed as not being related to matters that are classified as charitable.
Please, spread the word of this far and wide. Let everyone know to what lengths out existing federal Liberal government and Rock will go to oppose us who believe that C-68 is tainted legislation.
Andy von Busse
New Institute Opens Doors on Property Rights
The Canadian Property Rights Research Institute (CanPRRI) was unveiled
late May with the mission "to research the role of the individual's
right to own property in creating a free and prosperous society."
Smith has told me that CanPRRI will have a website up within a few days, so check back for the URL. Support organizations that support your freedom.
Promote Canada...Take the Free Website in the United States
B.C. Government Blinks on Election Gag Law: Won't Charge NCC
The Rich are Guilty...of Giving!
A friend who is not given to exaggeration or fibs told me this happened last month:
Last month a group of hard working Canadians decided to picket against wealth and capitalism outside of an industrial concern. Bad wealthy people...bad.
At the same time those hard working Canadians were protesting, the head of the company was giving $6-million for a cardiac care unit at one of the local hospitals. Without his donation, the cardiac care unit would not have been possible.
Yeah, those hard working Canadians were right. Wealth is bad.
© 1996-2013, Enter Stage Right and/or its creators. All rights reserved.