The heartbreaking slippage of Bill C-21 on gun control is the result of poor planning and botched consultation by Justin Trudeau’s Liberals. By announcing a few days ago that C-21 was returning to the drawing board, Ottawa reassures some and worries others. The division of the camps is accentuated. Let’s hope that this essential piece of legislation does not end in a stalemate.
On the principle of better gun control aimed at saving human lives, the consensus is perfect. No one objects to the nobility of intentions. But the devil is in the details, and when it comes to firearms, the details pile up. Suffice it to say that the firearms reference table contains 200,000 makes and models for it to be effortlessly understood that distinguishing among such a lot of prohibited weapons is no small task.
It was by drawing up the list of weapons to be banned at the end of November that the Liberal government provoked anger and consternation not only among pro-gun lobbies and conservatives, but among hunters and First Nations, who suddenly found themselves in this index of tools needed. It has already been said: the two amendments that came out of the hat at the end of November without adequate preparation and consultation only succeeded in sowing confusion and dividing troops. This is the unfortunate risk one runs when one botches such important legislative material: alienating stakeholders rather than bringing them together.
Taken aback by the outcry, Mr. Trudeau’s Liberals promised in December that they would make the necessary adjustments, even if it meant reviewing the list and withdrawing hunting weapons if necessary. This promise could not be more timely. By announcing a few days ago that it was completely withdrawing the two controversial amendments — the definition of a “prohibited weapon” and the list of prohibited weapons — the government relieves one camp to inflame another. If the defenders of hunting indeed breathe a sigh of relief, the PolySeSouvient group is sorry to see that “misinformation” has got the better of parliamentary work.
It’s not entirely true. If the bill brought to the careful study of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security had arrived there in a complete form, put together after consultation with all the groups concerned and experts, perhaps we would not not here in the face of this overturning, which raises fears for the future. But poor preparation only served to divide the camps, as if Canada were a reflection of the lobby war being played out in the United States when that is absolutely not the case.
Bill C-21 remains essential to combat gun violence and ban weapons that should not be in circulation. By proposing an amendment that listed prohibited weapons, the government created an artificial division that did not exist originally and for which it is solely responsible. Let him concentrate on defining what a military-style assault weapon should be, to be prohibited, and he may succeed in rallying the camps around the essential: the fight against armed violence.