C-21 Amendments Withdrawn: The Political Ripples

This morning, at the first meeting of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Public Safety since the House rose for the winter break, the Liberal government immediately sought to withdraw the controversial amendments sought to Bill C-21; Amendments G-4, and G-46.

These amendments, introduced at the 11th hour in the parliamentary process, would have banned all semi-automatic centrefire rifles, thousands of rimfire rifles, all semi-automatic shotguns with a detachable magazine, and thousands upon thousands of bolt-action rifles by name - including popular rifles like the Ruger No. 1 and Weatherby Mk. V rifles. 

The withdrawal of these amendments precluded a much-anticipated vote within SECU to study the amendments’ impacts; a motion supported by the NDP, Bloc, and CPC that would have halted C-21’s forward progress until the Fall 2023 session at least - the delay the result of the committee’s need to procure funding for the study. 

Government House Leader Mark Holland leaned heavily on the process when questioned about the withdrawal, reiterating that the government is committed to safety, but that the process exists so that legislation can be thusly refined, even going so far as to say “we should celebrate” this sort of action. He continued by saying “we have a very good bill,” referring to C-21, but that the government is continuing to look at ways to adjust C-21 to incorporate additional concerns. He specified those concerns to be around 3D printed firearms, and the closure of “loopholes” he claims allow gun manufacturers to circumvent prohibitions of assault-style firearms his government is still committed to prohibiting.

Liberal Tone Changes

Although the Liberal response to the withdrawal has been relatively (and understandably) quiet, Liberal SECU members Mr. Noomohamed and Mrs. Damoff have made comments re-affirming their commitment to public safety and gun control, with both citing Bill C-21 as “the most progressive gun law in a generation.” That both use the same terminology verbatim signals a shift in tone, with the Liberals pivoting towards a value-based argument for C-21, indicated by the comment about C-21’s “progressive” nature. This itself is likely an attempt to sidestep the impact these amendments, and their summary withdrawal, have had on the Liberal Party of Canada’s credibility around guns by instead proffering a values-based decision: Do you support progressive laws, or not?

This is especially interesting to note when you consider that all Liberal members of SECU hail from ridings in the GTA and GRVD areas; each a prototypical riding where the LPC would likely expect gun control policies to play well. Even more interesting? Nearly all the Liberal members of SECU are facing current polling figures that place them squarely in “toss-up” elections. 

The NDP Future?

Alistair MacGregor; the lone NDP member of SECU and an MP who has done a superlative job of representing his constituents, has publicly taken Pierre Poilievre to task for taking credit for the withdrawal - pointing out that his office had prepared a motion to have the amendments withdrawn by the chair as invalid, and that he was prepared to bring them to a vote today.

This is interesting because it continues Mr. MacGregor’s departure from the NDP’s recent talking points around firearms, which have historically been in near lock-step with the Liberal Party’s. So, opposing a gun control bill is somewhat surprising for the NDP. Ensuring the NDP is credited for the effort? Even more surprising. And with election rumours still swirling and the reality of an NDP leadership race thus on the horizon, this tonal shift around guns seen now with Mr. MacGregor’s comments may be an indication that the NDP is ready to litigate the gun issue internally - and the leadership race will likely be their first opportunity to do see that change through. Will the NDP return to its rural, blue-collar roots and shift on firearms reform, or will it continue to chase Liberal coattails into the downtown cores of Toronto, Montreal, and Vancouver? Time will tell.

Election Impacts

Unfortunately, time will also tell when the next federal election will be held; with the Liberals likely to be the ones to trigger it, the ball remains squarely in their court. But if this is to be taken as any indication, the withdrawal of C-21’s most contentious components would seem to signal the abandonment of a significant urban wedge issue, and thus that rumours of a Spring election may end up being just those: rumours.

Likewise, the SECU committee’s decision to move on to other matters and leave C-21 tabled for now indicates that the Liberal party is (at least for now) looking to move on, perhaps in order to put some distance between themselves and the controversy created.

Overall Political Impressions

Many are struggling with whether or not this should be categorized as a “win.” But looking at this from that the binary win/loss perspective robs one of a lot of context, and here, it is that context that is far, far more important than the outcome: This represents the first time the Trudeau Liberals have backed down from a gun policy in seven years. And that’s huge.

Because prior, this had all the earmarks of familiar Liberal gun policy; zero consultation with industry or experts, zero warning provided, zero interest in working with stakeholders and zero interest in constructive dialogue even after introducing the bill. So to have the Liberals suddenly pull an about-face on the amendment feels… momentous. 

Does this mean the Liberals “get it?” Hell no. From Mr. Noormohamed to Mr. Mendocino to Mrs. Damoff, the Liberals that have broached the subject have been unwavering in their commitment to continue working to ban “these kinds” of firearms. It seems they just know they need to find a better way to accomplish that goal. And of course, if Mr. Holland’s comments are to be believed, it appears that we can look to the Liberals to again try and expand C-21’s mandate to include things like 3-D printing and whatnot. So no, the Liberals have likely not pivoted away from gun control as their go-to high-profile public safety policy.

But - and this is the crucial part - it means the Liberals have learned something new. Something that tells them that pursuing this matter isn’t politically beneficial. Something so convincing that they were willing to hurt themselves politically to walk it back. Perhaps it was a poll indicating that the well of political profit labelled “gun bans” has run dry in this country, or perhaps it’s a scheduling issue caused by a delay in the planned election writ. We can’t, and likely will never know. But in either case, it’s new, it’s novel, and it inspired the Liberals to do something we’ve never seen before. 

But is it a good thing? Only time will tell.