1: A ‘no ban’ plan
It may seem counterproductive to the government’s agenda but banning firearms by model or type has been the means, not the stated end goal of these policies. It is supposed to be for public safety. Bans aren’t a prerequisite for enhanced public safety, and a ‘no ban plan’ was the OFAH advocacy theme since the federal government’s 2018 Dialogue on Reducing Violent Crime ‘engagement’ that has been used as the rationale for a barrage of significant policy changes put forward since, including Bill C-21. All this despite the findings of this consultation not supporting the need for banning firearms.
Amendment G4 is another example of a firearm policy where the government has jumped directly to prohibitions, skipping over several less extreme alternatives that would still help to achieve the end goal. In the case of Bill C-21, the government had already proposed new provisions that would broaden the scope of offences for what is already illegal. The government signaled “future regulations to address commitments on Large Capacity Magazines: to require the permanent alteration of long gun magazines so that they can never hold more than five rounds, and prohibit the sale and transfer of magazines capable of holding more than the legal number of bullets.”
While we don’t support permanent alteration of magazines and all alternative options would come with their own set of trade-offs and require full consultation, they are at least more targeted to magazine capacity and achieving the stated intent, which could help to minimize the incidental consequences on Canadians.
CLICK HERE to see Amendment G4 in its entirety.
WHAT NEEDS TO HAPPEN
Remove Amendment G4. The addition of Amendment G4, like most prohibitions, is an unnecessarily blunt policy instrument with unintended consequences for Canadians. If the intention is to limit the availability of magazines that have the potential capacity to exceed the already established legal limit, then the government should focus its efforts on that.
We acknowledge that banning magazines already in the possession of Canadians is also a drastic move but banning at the firearm level is much more extreme. Bans are a last resort and shouldn’t be implemented without exhausting other possibilities. Other legislative options were raised by the government itself, so why ignore them?
Policy changes related to magazine capacity as originally proposed in Bill C-21 (broadening the scope of offences) could still move forward. If the government feels compelled to go further, other no-ban options exist that should be fully explored and consulted on before using model-based prohibitions. A stepwise and adaptive approach is much fairer to Canadians.
A no-ban approach has been our recommendation throughout previous discussions on gun legislation, including Bill C-71, the May 2020 OIC, and now Bill C-21.
♦♦♦
2: Consult
We are concerned that there was no dialogue on the proposed amendments with the hunting community, including Indigenous peoples. The OFAH requested an opportunity to provide testimony during the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security (SECU) study of Bill C-21 but was not granted the opportunity. This was before we were aware of Amendment G4 and its implications for hunters. There was always a stake and need for the hunting community to be involved in this discussion, but Amendment G4 has made it critical.
WHAT NEEDS TO HAPPEN
Hit pause on the parliamentary process for Bill C-21 to get it right. Give Indigenous peoples and the hunting community an opportunity to provide evidence/testimony on Bill C-21 and any amendments, including testimony during SECU’s analysis.
♦♦♦
3: Target criminals
This is the default message of the firearms community on almost all the policy changes proposed in recent years, but it bears repeating. The overwhelming majority of firearms violence in Canada involves guns that have been illegally smuggled into the country from the United States. We need to stop diverting society’s attention from serious issues related to gun violence and criminal use of guns. We must invest in ways to address the root causes of violence and criminal activity, as well as policing and justice system reforms needed to protect Canadians now and into the future.
In the case of Bill C-21, the government introduced a new provision that would target criminal activity related to magazine capacity. This provision would “create a new Criminal Code offence for altering a cartridge magazine to hold more than its lawful capacity with a maximum penalty of five years imprisonment on indictment or punishable on summary conviction”. This would be a specific offence for ‘unpinning’ a magazine. While it is already illegal to do so, it is only a ‘lesser included offence’ and the government’s desire is to broaden it to make a specific offence. It would be a tool to target those individuals who are purposely committing crimes (e.g., organized crime), and will aid in tracking a person’s behaviour when looking at their criminal record. In other words, it was a precision tool targeted at criminals.
WHAT NEEDS TO HAPPEN
Give the proposed Criminal Code offence a chance to work (by removing Amendment G4). The proposed new Criminal Code offence is a sensible legislative change that directly tackles the stated intent of Bill C-21: enhanced public safety by targeting criminals without any unnecessary impacts to average law-abiding Canadians.
♦♦♦
4: Don’t use exemptions as a rule
The government’s attempt to codify an evergreen definition of ‘prohibited firearm’ in the Criminal Code has resulted in unintended consequences such as the prohibition of certain models of popular hunting rifles and shotguns. If there is a genuine willingness from the government to ensure that hunting rifles and shotguns are not inadvertently prohibited by Bill C-21 and the amendments, then this should be accomplished by clarifying the definitions in amendment G4 (if it is not repealed) rather than by exempting specific models of firearm in the schedule.
WHAT NEEDS TO HAPPEN
If amendment G4 is not repealed, clauses (e), (f), and (g) must be reworded to ensure that hunting rifles and shotguns are not captured by the prohibition.
♦♦♦
5: Focus on the policy of firearms, not the politics
Constructive debate on firearms is nearly impossible nowadays. The highly politicized and hyper-partisan approach to firearms has not only split and confused Canadians, but it has also left no space to develop good policies. It may make a good political fundraising appeal and an election wedge issue, but it doesn’t make Canadians safer. The highly charged nature of the debate means that Canadians will have to suffer through significant swings in gun laws each time a new political party rises to power. This unacceptable pendulum swing will waste valuable time that would be better spent addressing the very real gun violence and criminal activity that hurts Canadians. We need policies that will transcend political party mandates and set Canadians up for actual public safety improvements.
WHAT NEEDS TO HAPPEN
Facilitate non-partisan stakeholder dialogue on firearms to develop apolitical strategies that protect Canadians. Turn down the political pressure in the firearms debate by bringing all sides of this debate together in formal strategy development focused on commonality in advancing public safety as it relates to gun violence and criminal use of firearms. It wouldn’t be a ‘win’ at the other end of the spectrum but will benefit all Canadians.
Our government should be facilitating constructive dialogue among Canadians on firearms because they don’t have a side and shouldn’t take one. Their job is to develop, maintain, and enforce good policies and programs that will maximize public safety while minimizing unnecessary impacts on Canadians who are directly affected. The OFAH will participate in these discussions if they are truly about finding common ground/goals.
♦♦♦
6: Educate Parliament
It is clear from the debate on Amendment G4 that there is a lack of knowledge about firearms, the laws that govern them, and how they are used lawfully in Canada. Basic knowledge on a topic should be a prerequisite for making informed decisions that will directly impact millions of Canadians. We need to hold Parliament to a high standard when it comes to decision-making, and firearms are no exception. They have a long history in Canada and enormous modern value that must be fully considered and respected.
WHAT NEEDS TO HAPPEN
Take steps to educate Parliamentarians, particularly those who are studying firearms legislation, on the current firearms laws and facts about use of firearms in Canada. In the past, the OFAH has facilitated the training of Parliamentarians and their staff on the proper use of firearms by coordinating Canadian Firearms Safety Courses. There is an open invitation to all Parliamentarians for us to help find them a suitable instructor to carry out this training to provide an important baseline to parliamentary discussions and policy development. At the very least, this should be mandatory for members of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security.
♦♦♦
7: Educate Canadians
While firearms remain important to millions of Canadians for a variety of legitimate and lawful uses, we also acknowledge that most Canadians have become disconnected from their everyday use. Due to the overwhelming influence of American media and politics in Canada, many Canadians have serious misconceptions about how Canada’s gun laws and rate of firearms violence differ from those in the United States. There is a desperate need to address this misunderstanding because it is a prerequisite for an informed discussion about firearms.
WHAT NEEDS TO HAPPEN
The Government of Canada should acknowledge and promote the modern use of firearms in this country, differentiate the importance and benefits of lawful use from the criminal and violent use of firearms, and develop made-in-Canada messaging to address the public misconception that our gun laws are similar to those in the United States.
♦♦♦
8: Targeted and meaningful advice before and during policy development
In 2017, meaningful input from the sport shooting and hunting community and industry was essentially eliminated from the Canadian Firearms Advisory Committee (CFAC) and it isn’t clear if or how CFAC has contributed to the development of Bill C-71, the May 2020 Order-in-Council, or Bill C-21. The government has the potential to get good advice during the development of policies long before they hit the parliamentary process, but it will require balance and independence from political agendas.
WHAT NEEDS TO HAPPEN
Reconfigure CFAC to be a representative advisory body on firearms issues. We may have missed an opportunity for improving CFAC and its advisory role for Bill C-21, but this government can send a strong signal right now to show meaningful commitment to having the firearms community better represented on CFAC by restoring membership of groups like the OFAH.
Additional links
OFAH Insider: The Facts on Firearms
Letter to Ontario Premier Doug Ford urging the provincial government to take a stance on C-21
OFAH Inside Access: A discussion on firearms
Leave a Comment