Tim Thurley: The lies the B.C. NDP told about guns didn't work
Reasonable laws require reasonable discussion by reasonable people.
By: Tim Thurley
British Columbians are used to federal elections being settled before they finish voting. The unusual emergence of firearms as a wedge issue in provincial politics means that this time British Columbia might set the national tone, no matter which side comes out on top when the ballots are all counted and a clear winner is known.
During a campaign stop last month, John Rustad announced that a B.C. Conservative-led government would not commit provincial policing resources to the federal Firearm Compensation Program (FCP), a program designed to collect and destroy certain legally acquired, privately-held firearms now deemed “assault-style” after they were prohibited by a 2020 order of the federal government.
This is a common stance among the provinces. It is already held by the premiers of Alberta, Saskatchewan, Ontario, and New Brunswick. Yukon’s legislature supported it in a motion backed by the Yukon NDP. When Saskatchewan passed legislation constraining federal ability to confiscate firearms from lawful owners within their borders, it did so with the unanimous consent of its provincial NDP. Other provinces have been quieter, but most are similarly reluctant to pay.
That bipartisan response is not surprising. The federal government has had difficulty implementing the logistically complex and costly program after four years of planning. The program’s cost already exceeds $67 million dollars, and it’s still in the planning stages. External agencies and organizations such as Canada Post have refused to participate in the individual program, in part because the downside potential for lost or “diverted” firearms is high. The RCMP’s union doesn’t think it will work. Quality research doesn’t support the principle. Even the decision to make collection and destruction mandatory only came after strong pressure from anti-firearm lobbies. Dedicating provincial resources risks sharing blame for a tricky, expensive program that won’t improve public-safety outcomes.
Given that context, it was a shock to see the NDP use the election as an opportunity to launch a furious attack on Rustad. NDP candidates, including Public Safety Minister Mike Farnworth, claimed that Rustad would “ignore federal gun laws” that “restrict semi-automatic assault rifles [sic] and freeze handgun sales.” They claimed Rustad’s position would mean gangs could “import and carry these illegal guns with impunity.” The NDP tweeted that Rustad would allow “abusers, gang members, and traffickers … to carry assault weapons unchecked.” Children and Families Minister Grace Lore took up another prong, sharing a statement claiming Rustad would ignore laws that “give police power to remove guns from people subject to protection orders or involved in intimate partner violence.” Premier Eby raised the issue multiple times during an October 2nd debate while dismissing B.C. firearm owners as “invisible.”
It’s impossible to sugarcoat it: most of the NDP claims were unequivocally false. Let’s dispel some of the worst.
It’s dishonest to directly connect the FCP to combating gangs or assault rifles. Only individuals who hold valid firearms licences and have maintained that status since 2020 will be eligible to participate. There’s currently an amnesty that covers licensed individuals who legally acquired firearms and, but for the stroke of a federal pen, would continue to be able to legally and safely use them. They are, by definition, trusted by the federal government to own firearms. Police forces around Canada have testified the overwhelming majority of gang firearms are smuggled, not stolen or otherwise diverted from lawful owners. There’s no amnesty for illegal firearms held by gangs.
Nobody owns “semi-automatic assault rifles.” An assault rifle is by definition a select-fire firearm, prohibited in Canada (not restricted) since the late 1970s. The semi-automatic (and some bolt action and single shot) firearms subject to the FCP, by contrast, are widely used for lawful purposes by hunters and sport shooters in Canada. They are not “unchecked,” but subject to the aforementioned rigorous licensing scheme.
Everything that Eby and his team said above to the contrary was a lie to the electorate during a campaign. Little of it was rooted in fact, and none of it was honest.
Many of the remaining NDP claims also have nothing whatsoever to do with Rustad’s position. Most are not even possible for a provincial leader to enact. A province cannot legalize prohibited firearms or ignore the handgun “freeze,” which are firmly in federal jurisdiction. Ditto for firearm imports. A province can direct police and prosecutors to treat certain offences as a lower priority or not in the public interest to prosecute, but even that defensible policy is not a position Rustad articulated.
The NDP also misrepresented changes brought through former federal Bill C-21. Police have had the power to seize firearms from anyone unlicensed or posing a threat to themselves or others for decades. Protection orders, depending on the province, already allowed (or required) justices to issue firearm bans. A Chief Firearms Officer could already deny or revoke a licence and seize firearms when they believed it was in the safety interest of any person to do so.
C-21’s main change regarding police was not to give police more tools, but to remove their discretion in exercising tools they already had. The unfortunate consequence of that is that some individuals investigated by the police and found not to be a threat at all will be negatively and lastingly impacted.
It’s critical to note that the Eby government largely isn’t enforcing these changes, either. That’s because, much like the FCP, many changes to licence ineligibility, suspension and revocation aren’t in effect. The federal government has delayed bringing them into force, a decision likely made in part because their impact — as I warned the Senate — is almost certain to be detrimental to vulnerable and Indigenous people who encounter the justice system, which would normally be a key NDP concern.
Rustad’s relatively banal statement on firearms, which is in line with that of most provinces, can in no way validate an election strategy seeking to portray him as a dangerous idealogue. So his opponents invented new positions for him.
This isn’t new to our politics. Federal pre-electioneering has already plumbed ridiculous depths: wild accusations that the Conservatives are “in the pockets of the NRA” and the utterance of blatant untruths about existing legislation and proposed C-21 amendments. These strategies did not work during parliamentary debate, which offers time for reflection and pushback. They may work in a general election, where there is far less time to scrutinize claims.
That is what the NDP was counting on in the recent campaign, and that abuse of public safety policy and public trust is a problem. Citizens concerned over false information should worry about what it means for parties and sitting governments to manufacture the positions of their opponents on issues where they can take advantage of lack of public knowledge. The capacity of the media to address false information, and of social media to amplify it, all speak to challenges faced by modern democratic states.
Reasonable laws require reasonable discussion by reasonable people. By attempting to conflate not committing resources to a federal program that doesn’t exist yet with the ludicrous spectre of not enforcing the Criminal Code or entire Firearms Act, Premier Eby failed to clear that low bar.
Rather than having a valid debate over whether provincial resources would be best used to assist the federal government in confiscating firearms from licensed owners, his ministers simply lied about which policies were in question. Rather than backing down when called out on these matters, Eby and his party continued to hammer opponents for a policy they do not even hold, while claiming that his opponent was suffering from a “credibility problem.”
The firearm debate in B.C. didn't seem to swing the campaign. That’s not necessarily surprising. There isn’t a huge electorate in Canada that sees more gun control as a key priority; most voters tend to care far more about whether policies control crime, period. We saw a glimpse of that on October 21st, when three major police unions — including those representing the Vancouver and Surrey Police — pushed back hard on the handgun “freeze” policy following Trudeau’s online celebration of the anniversary.
But firearms remain a salient part of the federal Liberal political strategy, largely as an attempt to piggyback on a polarized American political environment, so the lessons parties learned from watching B.C. will still inform the next federal election. That may mean parties imitate Eby’s mudslinging and deliberate falsehoods. Probably the best we can hope for is a nasty but robust debate that is at least grounded in reality. It's a sad comment that it seems absurd to set our sights any higher than that.
Tim Thurley specializes in firearm policy, having earned a Master of Science from Leiden University with his analysis of the long-gun registry’s lack of effect on Canadian homicide rates. He lives in the Northwest Territories, where he files regular Access to Information requests on firearm issues and anything else of interest.
The Line is entirely reader funded — no federal subsidy for us! If you value our work and worry about what will happen when the conventional media finishes collapsing, please make a donation today.
The Line is Canada’s last, best hope for irreverent commentary. We reject bullshit. We love lively writing. Please consider supporting us by subscribing. Follow us on Twitter @the_lineca. Fight with us on Facebook. Pitch us something: lineeditor@protonmail.com
Excellent article. It was really frustrating to see what was happening in BC, along with a noticeable reluctance by some media to fact check or challenge what was being said.
Thank you Tim,great article. My dad and uncle went to Ottawa to join the protest against the Liberals first Gun Registery. I was impressed,and he was only a part time hunter. 35 years he worked for Lands and Forests(Natural Resiurces) and taught his 6 boys to enjoy and respect Canadas great outdoors(environment). Today,after taking all the required training,courses,certifications because my dad told me it’s the right thing to do(Game Warden,then Manager),I still am left feeling like a criminal buying a box of .410 shells. Because the wife enjoys going for walks in the fall and maybe bringing home supper seeing a Grouse. It was always like a right of passage,for me,my son,his daughter. This group of Liberals have written such a bad piece of policy that I don’t even know which one of my firearms are illegal. Like many of the men and women in Alberta,we are law abiding citizens who followed ‘all’ the rules.