The Liberals backed themselves into a corner on firearms — leaving no option but surrender
They had a bill, it had support. Then they got creative.
"My Conservative team and I have forced Justin Trudeau into a temporary but humiliating climb-down today," Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre crowed.
It was a "climb-down" and it was "humiliating" — that much seems beyond dispute. But if Conservative criticism was a deal-breaker for this government, the Liberals would have a hard time getting much of anything passed.
What truly forced the government to retreat was more likely the simple fact that they couldn't count on enough support from everyone else. And the government's mistake was to allow itself to get so thoroughly cornered that throwing up its hands was the only conceivable way forward.
C-21 was designed and presented originally as legislation to implement a national freeze on handgun sales. Had it remained that, it might have passed the House of Commons by now. The bill was approved at second reading last June, with all Liberal, NDP and Bloc Quebecois MPs voting in favour.
But when MPs on the public safety committee got around to considering possible amendments to the bill this fall, the Liberal side put forward two changes that would have affected a much larger number of firearms. The government was swiftly and loudly accused of overreaching in a way that would have an adverse impact on law-abiding hunters and farmers.
So much for 'no surprises'
Beyond even the practical impacts, the execution was awkward and strange.
Among those apparently caught off-guard by the amendments were the New Democrats, the government's partners in the confidence-and-supply agreement. The second sentence of that agreement stipulates that "to ensure coordination on this arrangement, both Parties commit to a guiding principle of 'no surprises.'"
That's no small detail. That principle of "no surprises" — of ensuring one party knows what the other is going to do and why — is critical to building and maintaining the trust that makes a confidence-and-supply deal work.
It may be particularly important when dealing with an issue like gun control, which has proved difficult for the NDP in the past.
But the NDP was not the only player the government had to worry about. Liberal MP Kody Blois, chair of the party's rural caucus, called the amendments "problematic." The Assembly of First Nations passed a resolution officially opposing the changes.
"What we acknowledged today is insufficient consultation, that more work had to be done to hear from Indigenous communities and from Canadians across the board," government House leader Mark Holland gamely stated on Friday.
Even if the amendments had somehow passed, the Speaker might have been compelled to rule them out of order. Once a bill has been approved at second reading, the committee charged with studying the legislation has limited scope to propose amendments. Any changes must fall within the original intent and purpose of the bill.
NDP House leader Peter Julian rose in the House on Monday to tell Speaker Anthony Rota that he felt the government's amendments violated that principle. Rota said he would wait to see what the committee sent back to the House before ruling.
Malice? Or something else?
Conservative MP Raquel Dancho described the Liberal machinations as "underhanded" on Friday — but this might be a good moment to remember Hanlon's Razor ("never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity"). These amendments were never going to escape notice. If the Liberals believed they'd easily win support for the changes, they miscalculated wildly.
The Conservatives claimed on Friday that the government's retreat was really just a "pause," that the Liberals had shown their hand and would try again "if" they regain a majority in the House of Commons.
It's not hard to understand why the Conservatives would want to make that argument. But the Liberals had a majority from 2015 to 2019 and somehow managed to avoid banning hunting rifles during those four years. It's also equally plausible that the government's pratfall in this case has only made it harder for them to do anything else on firearms in the future.
"Any time you deal with guns, you're dealing with an enormously complex and emotional issue because you have two very passionate and rightfully passionate communities," Holland said.
He's not wrong. But the Liberals should know that by now, having experienced the divisive saga of the now-defunct long-gun registry.
Liberals are obviously inclined — either by personal belief or electoral calculation — to pursue stricter gun control. And they no doubt understand how much trouble the issue can create for Conservatives.
But regardless of their intentions, the Liberals suffer if they appear clumsy and bumbling — especially when they're still trying to recover from a difficult year during which their competence was in question.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Ottawa withdraws controversial amendments to firearms law
Critics say amendments would have banned a number of long guns in wide use by hunters
Faced with fierce opposition from Conservative, NDP and Bloc MPs and firearms rights groups, Liberal MP Taleeb Noormohamed said Friday the government is withdrawing a long list of guns that would have been classified as "prohibited" as part of a push to ban "assault-style" weapons.
The amendments, which were quietly tabled by a Liberal backbench MP in November, would have banned these weapons under the Criminal Code, rather than through regulation. That change would have made the prohibition much more difficult for future governments to reverse.
The government is scrapping clauses that effectively would have banned any rifle or shotgun that could accept a magazine with more than five rounds — whether it actually has such a magazine or not.
The government also intended to ban long guns that generate more than 10,000 joules of energy, or any gun with a muzzle wider than 20 millimetres — two rules that would have rendered many firearms illegal.
WATCH | Firearms amendments dropped:
These amendments would have had the effect of banning a number of long guns in wide use by hunters.
C-21, as originally drafted, was designed to ban handguns. The amendments expanded its scope.
Because the amendments strayed so dramatically from how the bill was initially written, opposition parties questioned whether the changes were even admissible under parliamentary rules. Those concerns are moot now that the government has backed down.
The government will still push ahead with C-21, which enacts a handgun sales ban, cracks down on gun smuggling and automatically revokes firearms licences held by domestic abusers.
While backtracking on some of the more contentious elements, Public Safety Minister Marco Mendicino said Friday the government would try to revive some parts of the now-defunct amendments package.
Among other changes, the withdrawn amendments would have defined "assault-style firearm" — a term often used by the government that has no definition in law.
In an interview with CBC's Power & Politics, Mendicino said the government will pursue some sort of ban on firearms "designed for the battlefield that have no place in our communities."
What's needed in this minority Parliament, Mendicino said, is support from either the NDP or Bloc — parties that withheld support in the face of backlash from rural dwellers and some Indigenous peoples.
Mendicino conceded the government bungled the process.
"We've got to accept responsibility from where we're at. The step we've taken today is about resetting the narrative," he said, promising the Liberal government still intends to ban firearms used in mass casualty events, like the semi-automatic weapon used in the Quebec City mosque massacre.
Mendicino had defended the amendments before Friday, saying the changes were necessary to reduce gun violence in Canada.
Critics said a ban on popular hunting rifles would do little to make Canadians safer when many crime guns are handguns illegally smuggled over the U.S. border.
Mendicino said the proposed amendments prompted "considerable discussion about the best way to move forward" and "legitimate concerns" were raised by critics "about the need for more consultation and debate."
"We hear those concerns loud and clear, regret the confusion that this process has caused and are committed to a thoughtful and respectful conversation that is based on facts, not fear," he said.
Mendicino said the government didn't draft the amendments to punish rural Canadians, hunters or Indigenous people who rely on these firearms.
"As we've said time and again, the government's intent is to focus on AR-15s and other assault-style weapons. Hunting isn't just a proud Canadian tradition, it's a way of life for communities across this country. Bill C-21 isn't about targeting hunters. It's about certain guns that are too dangerous in other contexts," he said.
PolySeSouvient, a gun control group, said it was "shocked" by the government's decision.
"It is clear that the misinformation propagated by Conservative MPs and the gun lobby has won," said Nathalie Provost, a spokesperson for the group.
Provost said she wants the Liberal government to work with the NDP and Bloc Québécois to table legislation to deliver on its promise to ban assault weapons.
The Liberal government has already banned what it calls "assault-style" firearms through an order-in-council — a directive from cabinet enacted in May 2020 after the Portapique massacre in Nova Scotia.
The intent of the now-withdrawn Bill C-21 amendments was to codify that assault ban in law (an order-in-council can easily be revoked by another government) and add many more makes and models to the list of illegal firearms.
WATCH: Government needs more time, House leader says
Government House Leader Mark Holland said the government "needs more time" to consult with the firearms community before reviving some of the amendments that were scrapped — including a section that would have banned "ghost guns," which can be bought online and assembled at home.
Meanwhile, a spokesperson for the Canadian Coalition for Firearm Rights, a firearms lobby group, called the Liberal reversal "a small win in a bigger battle."
"It's imperative we crush #C21 in its entirety. The Liberals are retreating, now is the perfect time to push forward and #ScrapC21 altogether," Tracey Wilson said. "Good work. Now, let's refocus and scrap it all."
Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre said Friday he "forced Trudeau into a temporary and humiliating climb down."
"He desperately wanted to ban hunting rifles — it was a sucker punch to our lawful and licensed firearms owners," Poilievre said of the amendments. "He's doing this because he got caught. We will not let up. Conservatives will never allow Justin Trudeau to ban hunting rifles."
WATCH: Conservatives forced Trudeau into a 'humiliating' climbdown, Poilievre says
Poilievre said he described the Liberal backtracking as "temporary," adding he expects Trudeau will be back with another plan to target rural Canadians, Indigenous peoples and sport shooters who used these firearms.
"God forbid if he ever got a majority — he'd ram it through," Poilievre said.
NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh said he supports both a national handgun ban and a move to restrict "assault-style" weapons, but he described the government's management of the file as a "failure."
WATCH: Liberal management of firearms file was 'horrible,' Singh says
"It is clear that the Liberal government did not do the necessary work and they mismanaged the entire issue. That is clear," Singh told reporters, adding the government bungled Indigenous consultation on the issue.
"They endangered the work we need to do to protect our communities."
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Are you kidding me, gag me with a spoon!
what are you clowns going to be able to answer
I have a question, why are there so few articles about a high flying spy balloon that is very close to Canada and over the US?
How come if you attach a legitimate website to one's comment - such as the New York times - with words such as - Please see - ""NY TIMES" you get content deactivated?
You would find any real firearms rights expert too "icky" to allow inside your hallowed halls. Therefore, your ability to answer questions on this topic is highly suspect.
I asked a valid question last time and you didn't answer it. I waited 8 hours, nothing. In fact, I didn't see any questions answered.
Hahahahaha!!! Hahahahahahahaha!
The only question I have for you guys is when, if ever, are you going to hire real journalists again?
Taxpayers deserve better then the crap you guys publish.
Lol too funny
Thank you.
Yea, who is running CBC into the toilet?
Catherine Tait, lives in Brooklyn , New York.
Yeah I am sure you guys have a good handle on it...
Prelude to the introduction of C-11.
Lol thanks but no thanks.
I think I will wait for Aaron Wherry's unbiased " analysis ".
Why? You guys are as bad as justin at answering direct questions. Here is to hoping Pierre wins and follows through on his promise for you.
For what?
Why would I ask CBC?
They know all, Katie says so
Too embarrassed by some CBC bureaucrat-cypher dictating what the public must never know!
Perhaps you could do an article on Canada's existing firearm restrictions and requirements.
I put a fair effort into my post that showed how our broadcaster isn't presenting the news fairly for the right and left only to have it not allowed.
Unfortunate.
only the yanks are saying its a 'spy" balloon.gotta keep that fear growing .dont believe anything your hear and only half of what you see
thats a vey good question they will never answer cause it distracts from "the message"
Best one yet!
Does Bill-C21 apply equally to ALL Canadians regardless of race, colour, creed, gender, religion or status ?
Why don't you answer my emails?
No comments:
Post a Comment