Setting the record straight on the firearms legislation

There is no doubt that many things will be said about Bill C-21, An Act to amend certain Acts and to make certain consequential amendments (firearms), as it makes its way through the Senate this fall. The legislation has been a flashpoint for misinformation, misinterpretation, and hyperbole from all sides. As a long-time researcher, front-line service provider, and advocate, I’d just like to set the record straight on a few things. After a great deal of dialogue and deliberation with a variety of stakeholders, we know that Bill C-21 defines and prohibits military-style semiautomatic firearms; prohibits the import, sale, and transfer of handguns; reduces the risk of dangerous people having access to firearms, including those at risk of suicide or of committing domestic violence; and improves import and border controls. Other amendments to the Criminal Code close loopholes in relation to the purchase of ammunition, magazines, as well as the stockpiling and circulation of semi-automatic weapons. Canada looks on in horror as news item after news item reveals gun proliferation among the general population in the United States. Canadians see ourselves as more peaceable and less gun obsessed. It turns out, it’s the wrong time to be smug. Investigative journalism has revealed that the American National Rifle Association (NRA) helped the Canadian Shooting Sports Association set up a political arm that has been fighting this legislation, transforming Canada’s relationship to guns. Canadians concerned about gun violence and the encroachment of American-style “right to bear arms” attitudes increasingly displayed over the last few decades should pay attention to Bill C-21. Amanda Dale is a fellow with the Human Rights Research and Education Centre at the University of Ottawa. Photograph courtesy of uOttawa The Mass Casualty Commission report into the 2021 mass shooting in Portapique, N.S., which killed 21 people, called on federal and provincial governments to urgently implement stronger gun control measures, as well as improve protections for victim/survivors of gender-based violence. It also called for better tracking and reporting of assault weapons. (As a point of clarification, the Mass Casualty Commission Report reinforces Supreme Court decisions that a “right to bear arms” is not part of Canadian law or history.) Many of the Commission’s recommendations are reflected in Bill-C-21. From those who oppose the bill, we hear that “law-abiding gun owners” are not the problem. However, in per capita terms, Canada is now the biggest foreign buyer of American rapid-fire weapons. And fully half the crime guns it traced in 2022 were what authorities call “domestically sourced” weapons. Canada manufactures very few weapons in global terms, so this means most weapons implicated in Canadian crimes were legally imported. Handguns and semi-automatic military-style assault weapons affected by the legislation are not used for hunting or by farmers for legitimate purposes. Following the NRA-backed trail, academics are beginning to trace a clear connection between right-wing and white supremacists groups and the gun lobby, a troubling thread throughout the Mass Casualty Commission’s work as well. Events seared into the Canadian consciousness—the Montreal massacre, the Quebec Islamic Centre, and Dawson College, for example—were all committed with legally acquired firearms. Others, such as the 2018 Toronto Danforth mass shooting, involved guns that were stolen from legal owners. On the side of gun control advocates, there have been claims that Bill C-21 doesn’t go far enough. This can be confusing. Some feel that the legislation should list all assault weapons by name: we disagree. Bill C-21 most definitely bans military assault weapons, but arriving at an exhaustive definition gets the legislation into the weeds of a rapid-paced and changing industry. Internationally, there is no agreed-upon definition for military assault weapons, and in Canada, we have successfully used orders-in-council to update the banned weapons as new ones come onto the market, rather than enumerating a list in the legislation itself. We believe this better future-proofs the legislation and leaves out those guns that may technically meet an assault weapon definition, but are reasonably used for hunting because of their affordability. Bill C-21 is not sudden or new; in fact, it’s been a long time coming. Calls for a ban on semi-automatic, military-style weapons date back to the Montreal massacre more than 30 years ago. Independent Senator Hassan Yussuf is the sponsor of Bill C-21 in the Red Chamber. The Hill Times photograph by Andrew Meade Bill C-21 updates those calls, and also contains many of these outstanding recommendations. How will Bill C-21 help stem the record 869 per cent increase in shootings in Canada? While mass shootings can occur in countries with strict laws, they occur far less frequently. The United Kingdom rarely sees them. The United States had more than 600 in 2021, and has seen more than 250 in 2022, leaving hundreds dead and injured. In 2020, almost 20,000 Americans were murdered with guns. Despite the common refrain echoing in the Upper Chamber that gun violence is an urban or gang-related issue, Statistics Canada data shows rural rates of gun crime are higher in most provinces. Rates of domestic homicides, murders of police officers, and suicide are also generally significantly higher in rural areas and the West. Bill C-21 also directly helps tackle the epidemic of gender-based, intimate partner, and family violence—declared a global crisis by the World Health Organization and acknowledged in towns and cities across Canada. The legislation includes revocation of the firearms licences of those convicted of domestic violence, and suspension of licences where charges have been laid. As those of us who have worked with gender-based and intimate partner violence survivors know, guns are used daily to control and intimidate long before they are used to kill. Don’t get us wrong, this legislation—like any legislation—isn’t perfect. But on balance, it is well worth supporting without amending its interlocking and mutually supporting elements. As debate has moved on this legislation, we recognize and hear the concerns of Inuit, First Nations, and Métis people, especially their ability to hunt on their lands. But while there is a right to hunt for Indigenous people, there is not a right to own a military assault weapon not reasonably used for hunting. We affirm and promote the consultation of Indigenous voices on this legislation, as we are all aligned on how we want to tackle gun violence, and its increased implication in vigilantism, hate crimes, and misogynist killings. It’s been more than 30 years since the femicide mass casualty at the École Polytechnique in Montreal in 1989 that killed 14 women and injured many others, and mobilized Canadians to call for stricter gun controls. Bill C-21 has been a long time in the making, with too many lives taken in the intervening decades while we entertain well-funded and ill-researched interests that would have us stall the hopes of victims, families, and those disproportionately affected by guns and their intended purpose: to intimidate and kill. Amanda Dale is fellow, Human Rights Research and Education Centre, University of Ottawa; director, communications and engagement, Canadian Centre for Legal Innovation in Sexual Assault Law; and the strategic engagement specialist, principal author and project lead for the National Action Plan on Gender-Based Violence. The Hill Times