Right now thousands of trucks are pouring into Ontario, looking to make a statement. What that statement is depends greatly on who you ask, because as with any decentralized movement, the particulars vary. But overall, it’s safe to say some Canadians are quite upset about the state of things. This protest is an expression of at least that much.
This morning, seemingly in response, the Prime Minister has stated that he’s come into contact with someone who has tested positive for COVID. Again. As a result, the leader of our country (who took over 70 days off last year) will be self-isolating, although he’s got no symptoms and has tested negative for COVID himself.
And it makes one wonder, as this news comes towards the end of the Liberal caucus’ virtual retreat, if the few months since the last election aren’t beginning to feel like one hell of a long, drawn-out walk in the snow. A term that’s hung around Justin Trudeau’s neck ever since he failed to secure a second majority, it refers obviously to Pierre Trudeau's famously contemplative evening walk that preceded his retirement announcement, and has become a hackneyed term to reach for whenever discussions turn to Justin Trudeau’s seemingly perennially declining popularity among caucus, his party, and Canada at large. And were it not so dang apt, I’d be somewhat ashamed to use it myself.
But as the 38th anniversary of that walk approaches, accompanied by more of those aforementioned pesky headlines, the explanation provided by his father in back in February of 1984 must be assuredly echoing around the socially isolated rooms of the Prime Minister’s cottage: “I had a good day yesterday … and it seemed like a good day to have a last day.”
As inflation continues to outpace estimates, our National Security apparatus is so compromised we're not invited to G7 discussions of Russian hostilities, money laundering is at least a top ten industry nationally by a percentage of our GDP, and the mistaking of our once-capable foreign policy ministry for a travel agency has somehow managed to estrange us from both China AND America simultaneously, it’s hard to imagine the Prime Minister sees a lot of good days ahead. Not many of us do.
And I don’t think there’s anyone that’s paying attention who would argue with the statement that Trudeau’s heart just doesn’t seem to be in it anymore. The confident man that strode through a metro station in 2015 shaking people’s hands, and who famously birthed the “because it’s [current year]” meme is nowhere to be found today. Now he’s late to press conferences being held on his front porch about transparency reports and ethics investigations. Without conviction, the bravado that underpinned so many of his speeches starts to ring hollow, and one begins to wonder if the emperor has any clothes besides socks.
If Trudeau were to step down, one immediate question facing the Liberal caucus would be the status of the rifle ban passed by Trudeau and his then-Safety Minister Bill Blair. Having been instituted in May of 2020 by way of an Order-in-Council, sort of Canada’s version of an Executive Order, and with an estimated cost exceeding $2 billion, the ban is slated to practically come into effect when the amnesty protecting owners from being charged with possession of a prohibited firearm expires at the end of April this year. Since the announcement, owners have been told by the RCMP to await further instructions on how to obtain promised compensation from the government.
During this time, the various rifles in question, which most famously includes the AR-15, (as well as large calibre rifles, and a myriad of other semi-automatic rifles and shotguns), have not been permitted to be used, transported, or sold. In short, they’ve been locked in gun safes for two years, while the government has aspired to build the long gun registry's next of kin; the promised “buy-back” program contracted to IBM - perhaps best known in federal contracting circles as the providers of the Phoenix Pay System.
Concurrently, violent crime and homicide rates have risen, including crimes committed by people with firearms. In some areas, they’ve risen sharply, with headlines from areas like Ottawa and Halifax claiming record levels of violence. Unfortunately, clearance rates for these crimes have been declining as well, meaning more criminals are getting away with more crimes than in years past.
Now, I am not attributing the rise in crime to the prohibition of the rifles in question. To do so would be ridiculous; an AR-15 sitting in a gun safe has no impact on crime rates. But in that regard, we can consider Canada to be getting something of a free trial of Mr. Trudeau’s gun ban; a period of time in which Canadians can assume the impact to be as good or better than the impact of the actual buyback without incurring the real, actual, dollar value cost.
What do I mean by that? I mean that since the first of May, 2020, every gun that Mr. Trudeau decided to prohibit was effectively removed from Canadian existence by virtue of being legally locked away. Every law-abiding gun owner who can be expected to comply with the prohibition is already doing so. Furthermore, it’s safe to say that during this period, more people are keeping their guns locked away than can be expected to turn them in during a mandated buy-back period. Both past Canadian experience with the long gun registry (which was assumed to have captured roughly 50% of all firearms required to be registered before it was cancelled) and the New Zealand experience with their own buyback shows that; gun owners are obviously reluctant to comply with laws that they see as enabling the seizure of their property.
Ergo, we can safely state that the impact of the rifle prohibition is, right now, as great as it’s ever going to be. More than every gun the Liberal government will “purchase” is currently locked in a gun safe, out of use, and entirely out of circulation. And yet, crime rises, gun crime more sharply than many other categories.
In a government where the political ends have eternally justified the means, most media seem to view this ban as a political exchange; the promised and thus necessary price to be paid for avoiding an Andrew Scheer or Erin O’Toole prime ministership. Pundits openly discuss how Liberal gun policy will do nothing to crime rates, but actively supports the Liberal messaging in vote-rich Toronto - somehow without managing to broach how it seems counter to national unity, democracy, hell - decency, to offer up some Canadians as ritual political sacrifice to ensure Toronto and Quebec continues to deliver Liberal minority victories to the rest of Canada. But I digress.
This all means that as the April 30th amnesty deadline approaches, and talks begin to turn to a post-Trudeau Liberal Party of Canada, the handling of the gun ban and its conjoined amnesty will likely be the strongest indicator of the Liberal party’s future direction: Will it continue down the path set out by Justin Trudeau, a path that puts more emphasis on campaigning than governing, and relies on leveraging Canada’s electoral math against wedge issues to win elections? Or will it go down the path that more closely resembles the one Justin Trudeau promised in 2015; a path marked by evidence-based policy, transparency, and fiscal prudence?
And why are guns likely to be the strongest indicator of that choice? Because the ban was issued by way of an Order-in-Council, sort of Canada’s closest approximation to an “executive order,” the prohibition of these hundreds of thousands of rifles represents the largest reach, or overreach (depending on perspective), of the Trudeau Prime Minister’s Office. Simply put, it is the thing Justin Trudeau has done, unilaterally, without caucus or parliament, that impacts the most people and costs taxpayers the most money.
And without any parliamentary oversight, and the ban’s contested status in the Supreme Court, it is conceivable that a change in leadership at the party level could cause the Liberal government to extend the amnesty, especially with the ongoing court case leaving the OIC itself legally in something of a gray area. However, that court case would also prevent this or potentially a future government from withdrawing the OIC entirely, as the matter is currently before the courts.
Of course, when this occurs is anyone’s guess. But one thing’s certain: The questions about Justin Trudeau’s leadership of the Liberal Party are far from answered, and his behaviour since winning the last election has only served to fuel rumours that it was his last as a potential Prime Minister. As Liberal leadership hopefuls look to start carving out their portions of the Overton Window, gun owners would be wise to consider politicians’ comments on this particular policy as the proverbial canary in the coal mine for many others when it comes to discerning the pragmatists from the partisans.
SUBSCRIBE TO CALIBRE MAGAZINE
$30.00 / year
UNAPOLOGETICALLY CANADIAN MEN'S T-SHIRT
$29.00
UNAPOLOGETICALLY CANADIAN WOMEN'S T-SHIRT
$29.00
