I do not normally issue a “spoiler alert” in my weekly reports however this week I will focus on the recently announced semi-automatic rifle ban from the Prime Minister.
For those with no interest in this subject, this report may be of little value to you.
Aside from strong personal opinions on this recent announcement, I have also been hearing some confusion and misunderstanding that I will attempt to clarify.
From a misunderstanding perspective, many citizens have correctly pointed out that military assault rifles in Canada have long been illegal.
It has been suggested by many that the Liberal Government is intentionally attempting to mischaracterize certain semi-automatic rifles, selected for this ban, as being “military grade” or “assault style” and using other terms that have no legal definition in Canada.
This is true, many of the terms used to describe the rifles chosen for this ban do not exist within the Canada Firearms Act.
Another point of confusion has been the headline:
“Trudeau announces ban on 1,500 types of 'assault-style' firearms”.
While I have already referenced the misleading “assault style” term that does not exist within the Firearms Act, the number “1,500 firearms” has also led to confusion.
There is essentially eleven different types of semi-automatic rifles that have been arbitrarily selected for this ban.
Because these eleven types of rifles are manufactured by several different manufacturers, and in multiple different configurations, there are potentially 1,500 different variations of these core eleven rifle designs affected by this ban.
As for why these eleven rifle designs were selected by Prime Minister Trudeau, the PM has stated:
"These weapons were designed for one purpose and one purpose only: to kill the largest number of people in the shortest amount of time," Trudeau said. "There is no use and no place for such weapons in Canada."
CBC has also reported that the PM has “acknowledged that most firearms owners are law-abiding citizens, he said hunters don't need this sort of firepower.”
The last statement reported from CBC is of interest.
The semi-automatic rifle ban is not being done through a bill nor being debated and voted on in Parliament.
Instead the PM has decided to carry out this ban through an executive regulation change, known as an 'Order In Council'.
Having now read this particular order, buried at the bottom is this sentence:
“Recognizing that some Indigenous and sustenance hunters could be using previously non-restricted firearms for their hunting and may be unable to replace these firearms immediately, the Amnesty Order includes provisions for the limited use of these firearms for such purposes.”
This statement clearly acknowledges that in actual fact, these rifles are used for hunting and provides an amnesty to allow Aboriginal hunters to continue to use them accordingly.
The Liberal Government has yet to explain this contradiction.
The rifle ban also proposes a “buy back” plan where owners of these restricted rifles will, at some point in the future, be able to receive financial compensation for “selling” these rifles to the government at a currently unknown rate.
There is also a two-year amnesty for owners of these restricted rifles, while the government determines future steps on how the buy-back will work.
From my perspective, this issue should come before Parliament where it can be studied at committee stage.
Committee stage review is a critically important part of a bill’s progress, where experts and other affected groups can provide evidence on the proposed piece of legislation.
Ultimately evidence can lead to amendments and that is how legislation can be improved to better serve Canadians.
It also allows democratically elected MP's the opportunity to vote on such a bill, so citizens can hold us to account.
As it currently stands, this Order in Council allows none of these things to occur and that is not how our Parliament should deal with this topic, in a transparent and democratically accountable manner.
My question this week:
Do you agree?
I can be reached at Dan.Albas@parl.gc.ca or call toll free at 1-800-665-8711.
5/6/2020 05:56:29 pm
5/7/2020 10:00:30 am
5/6/2020 06:01:41 pm
I do not agree with this Order in Council. If the government wants to go in this direction, legislation should be debated in Parliament where hopefully some common sense can be added.
5/6/2020 08:24:02 pm
5/6/2020 06:48:30 pm
Definitely agree that this Dictatorial move by Trudeau needs to be shut down
5/6/2020 09:18:07 pm
5/6/2020 09:33:01 pm
Couldn’t of said it better myself I want to thank you for being our voice.
5/6/2020 09:47:28 pm
Thank you for your work Dan!
5/6/2020 10:32:30 pm
thank you for your hard work Dan, thank you
5/6/2020 10:34:44 pm
I certainly do not agree with this use of an OIC. I believe, despite no real evidence to support this novel as increasing the public safety, and much evidence, against, this OIC was used to push through an agenda not supported by our experts our parliamentary process. This sets a dangerous precident. Further, taking freedoms from our citizens that have not been proven effective or necissary should be done with great consideration, and only when truly required.
5/6/2020 10:51:06 pm
I do not agree w this OIC.
5/7/2020 01:26:08 am
5/11/2020 01:10:30 pm
This is inexcusable abuse of power by a minority government.
Leave a Reply.
Subscribe to the MP Report
Sign up now to get Dan's weekly MP report emailed directly to you!
Sign up now to get a monthly MP Report mailed directly to your home.
Dan Albas is the Member of Parliament for the riding of Central Okanagan-Similkameen-Nicola.
Central Okanagan – Similkameen – Nicola