Liberal MPs speak out over changes to gun bill

‘Problematic’ amendments spark confusion

Liberal members of Parliament are now adding their voices to a growing chorus of people demanding a fix to the government’s efforts to further restrict firearms.

MPs said Wednesday they’re being thrust into the role of firearms analysts for Canadians bombarding them with technical questions about the government’s proposed new gun restrictions, and that Ottawa needs to fix the confusion fast.

Nova Scotia MP Kody Blois, head of the Liberal rural caucus, said he’s always backed the government’s efforts to restrict handguns and tighten the rules on assault-style weapons — something the Liberals did with a sweeping order-in-council two years ago.

“But my line in the sand has always been hunting and rifles,” Blois said Wednesday.

“The way the amendment reads right now is problematic,” Blois said.

The amendments in question are proposed changes to Bill C-21, which was introduced in May. It would freeze the sale of handguns and give police more powers to investigate firearms offences, among other public safety measures.

But last month, the Liberals introduced hundreds of pages of amendments to the bill. The changes would institute an “evergreen” definition for what constitutes an illegal firearm in Canada, and broaden the list of guns that would be banned if the legislation passes.

Both the list and the definition are causing widespread confusion over which specific guns would be banned and why, as not all models of guns are listed.

Among the high-profile voices calling on the government to solve the issue was NHL superstar goalie Carey Price, whose decision to criticize the changes drew much more attention to the issue than the government was anticipating.

Liberal MP Pam Damoff (Oakville) said this week she received a text message from someone she knows in Saskatchewan who owns three rifles and is concerned they will be made illegal. She had to explain they won’t.

“There’s a lot of misinformation out there,” she acknowledged. “We’re not coming after hunters or farmers.”

The government has consistently said the intention of the amendments is to get weapons initially designed for the battlefield off the streets, maintaining there’s no reason for anyone to own them.

Some of the guns listed in the amendment have actually been prohibited for years, but the government is moving to legislate those prohibitions to make it harder for a future government to repeal the restrictions.

Federal Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre has said that if he becomes prime minister, this bill and other gun bills would be revoked, though he does support some measure of restrictions on firearms broadly.

“The old machine guns and traditional firearms that were banned back in the ’70s, obviously, those should stay banned,” he told True North’s Andrew Lawton recently.

“But those that are appropriate for use in hunting and recreational sports shooting should be classified accordingly.”

On Wednesday, he pointed out the pressure the Liberals are facing and said it shows they are out of touch with rural Canada.

“Canadians do not want to ban hunters; they want to stop criminals,” he said during question period.

“Will the government get the message?”

Public Safety Minister Marco Mendicino was asked how it is, if the government’s intent wasn’t to criminalize hunting guns, that the proposed amendments have caused such chaos and concern.

Mendicino said the hundreds of pages before the public safety committee are highly technical and should be scrutinized by committee members.

But even at that committee, MPs have been stymied in their quest to get clarity on the amendments, often going several rounds with officials to parse out details of which variants of which guns are being restricted, and why.

Mendicino said one option on the table is that the amendments provide the possibility of an “exemption” that would carve out reasons people could own an otherwise prohibited weapon, something he said the committee will consider.

“We remain open to receiving the final version from them,” he said in French.

Conservative MP Glen Motz, a former police officer who is part of the committee review, raised an eyebrow when asked what he made of the idea of an exemption list.

The amendments just need to be pulled — it’s the only solution, Motz said.

“They’re just scrambling now to save face and it’s not going to work.”