2020- 2022 Policy Process | Green Party of Canada
Where GPC membership collaborates to develop our policies
G21-P052 Safe and Accountable Firearms Ownership and Usage
Submitter Name
Nick Tan
Ratification Vote Results: Adopted
Proposal
The GPC acknowledges and supports Canada’s safe and accountable firearms owners by transferring regulation of non-criminal activities from the Criminal Code to a responsive administrative regulatory framework; the collaborative development of clear and equitable evidence-based firearms control regulations; and the strengthening of laws which seek to reduce criminal firearms-related violence.
Objective
To reset the GPC’s relationship and reputation with Canada’s 2.2 million licensed firearms owners and other public members by creating a responsive administrative regulatory framework for Canada’s safe and accountable firearms owners.
Benefit
Will earn the support and votes of up to 2.2 million licensed firearms owners, improve compliance with regulatory requirements, enhance transparency of decision-making, protect privacy, and allow law enforcement to focus on criminal misuse of firearms.
Supporting Comments from Submitter
The following evidence argues that gun control is effective but that Canadian firearms regulations fail to protect Canadians and waste taxpayer dollars. It shows how the Liberal and Conservative parties use gun control as wedge politics to win votes rather than keeping Canadians safe. In order to stop the horrific suffering caused by violent gun crime and firearms-related suicide, current attitudes towards firearms need to be re-examined and more research is needed to create informed policies.
1. Beauchamp, Zack. “A huge international study of gun control finds strong evidence that it actually works.” Vox. Nov 6, 2017.
https://www.vox.com/2016/2/29/11120184/gun-control-study-international-evidence
This article discusses an international study that examined 130 studies published between 1950 to 2014 in 10 countries and supports the notion that firearms control can have a positive social effect by reducing firearms-related deaths (e.g. suicides), lower rates of intimate partner homicides and unintentional firearms-related deaths with children. A link to the international study "What Do We Know About the Association Between Firearm Legislation and Firearm-Related Injuries? (2016) - Epidemiologic Reviews" is included in the article.
2. National Police Federation. “Gun Violence and National Safety in Canada.” (November 23, 2020)
To validate the assertion that the current firearms regulation regime does not work due to politicization, the National Police Federation (i.e. RCMP labour union) released a position statement that states that the “costly” Order-in-Council PC 2020-298 (May 1, 2020), which banned over 1,500 types of “assault-style” weapons, targeted "legal firearm owners" and did not address "current and emerging themes or urgent threats to public safety" which included "criminal activity, illegal firearms proliferation, gang crime, illegal guns crossing the border, or the criminal use of firearms".
3. Joan Bryden. "Liberals, Tories lay groundwork for turning gun control into wedge issue" Citytv (The Canadian Press). April 29, 2018.
This newspaper article highlights how firearms control policies are a major issue for Canadian voters and how the Liberals and Conservatives are using the issue as a tool for wedge politics rather than offering balanced solutions that meet the needs of Canada’s safe and responsible firearms community and effectively enhance public safety.
4. Report of the Auditor General of Canada to the House of Commons. "Chapter 10: Department of Justice - Costs of Implementing the Canadian Firearms Program." December 2002. https://www.oag-bvg.gc.ca/internet/docs/20060504ce.pdf
The Auditor General's report provides an example of how current firearms control legislation is poorly implemented (i.e. lacking transparency and costing over $1 billion by 2004/2005 instead of providing a promised $2 million surplus).
5. Ferguson, Lorna and Koziarski, Jacek, "What Do We Know About Firearms in Canada?: A Systematic Scoping Review" (2019). Sociology Publications. P.50
https://ir.lib.uwo.ca/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1053&context=sociologypub
This academic journal found that there is a significant gap in firearms-related research which impedes evidence-based policy making. Accordingly, this deficiency highlights why it is not appropriate to prescribe specific firearms regulations in the GPC policy proposal process now but rather to propose a process that allows collaborative firearms regulation development that includes relevant subject matter experts (e.g. public safety experts, mental health experts, firearms owners, law enforcement, victims rights groups, academics, etc.).
6. The Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms. "Concerns Regarding the New Regulations on Firearms" July 13, 2020.
https://www.jccf.ca/concerns-regarding-the-new-regulations-on-firearms/
This article explains Federal Court legal action initiated by the Canadian Coalition of Firearms Rights which challenges Order-in-Council PC 2020-298 (May 1, 2020) which allowed the Liberal government to criminalize and confiscate approximately 1,500 formerly-legal types of firearms and "variants" which were legally acquired. It is an example of how decisions about firearms are made without consultation with the firearms community.
7. Susana Ferreia. "Portugal’s radical drugs policy is working. Why hasn’t the world copied it?" The Guardian. December 5, 2017.
This newspaper article highlights three pillars of Portugal’s drug decriminalization policy that can be applied to decriminalization of safe and accountable firearms ownership and usage in Canada: Firearms are neither good nor bad – there are only healthy and unhealthy relationships with firearms, inappropriate firearms usage conceals underlying issues, and that the total eradication of firearms-related violence is an impossible goal.
Green Value(s)
Ecological Wisdom, Sustainability, Participatory Democracy, Social Justice, Respect for Diversity, Non-Violence
Relation to Existing Policy
This proposal would rescind and replace current GPC policy 1998 – Justice, G10-p14 Gun Control
We're building a new kind of politics. One that is open, participatory, and people-powered
If you believe in what we're doing, please consider making a small donation to help us build it
Report inappropriate content
Is this content inappropriate?
Comment details
You are seeing a single comment
View all comments
Conversation with Nick Tan
Hi Neil,
I'm Nick Tan and I originally conceived this proposal. You bring up some great points that I'd like to address. Sorry about not replying earlier, was very busy with work with my EDA, the PDPC, and 2022 VGM!
1) Unfortunately, the GPC policy process demanded a high-level proposal that fit under a 50 word limit. That said, the absence of specifics give flexibility to those who may try to implement the policy. But to help give an example of how this policy could be enacted, imagine if we eliminated the Canadian Firearms Program and delegated regulation to provincial Canadian Firearms Officers. Subject to overarching restrictions set at a national/federal level, provincials then develop regulations that define permitted activities so each province could have firearms regulations that fit their provincial demographics and culture. This dynamic exists in the regulation of gambling in Canada. Furthermore, the provinces send representatives who form a centralized administrator so provincial regulations are harmonized between provinces. This dynamic exists in the regulation of securities in Canada.
2) The laws to be strengthened would depend on the changes to the overall structural changes as illustrated above. That being said, the idea is that we could be doing more to deter criminal gun violence and fewer resources should be invested in unfairly discriminating against licensed firearms owners who have broken no laws.
3) Does "responsive administrative regulatory framework" mean "gun registry"? Short-answer is NO. This is not dog-whistle jargon but was suppose to reflect the difference between a federal jurisdiction (Criminal Code) vs. provincial jurisidction (non-Criminal Code). But it is interesting that your reaction was to immediately associate the term with "gun registry". I highlight this as an example of how Canadians are conditioned by the Liberal-Conservative wedge politics game to trigger reactions and deter open and frank discussion about all aspects of firearms regulation.
4) With regards to "evidence-based firearms control regulations", the whole crux of this proposal is the absence of evidence-based regulations. Trudeau banned "assault-style" weapons without explaining the rationale for the list. One significant issue with Canadian firearms regulation is a lack of transparency (e.g. government failure to explain how a specific regulation leads to a specific outcome) and accessibility (e.g. licensed firearms owners are never consulted, even though they are the primary stakeholder subject to regulation). So I have to disagreed that this is what politicians do when they create laws, at least in the context of Canadian gun control.
(Due to a 3,000 word limit, I will finish this reply in a second comment.)
Loading comments ...