The NDP “Compromise” Plan – Part II


Today we will continue our look at just what “Turncoat” Charlie Angus’ Private Member’s Bill C-580 really says, compared to what Jack’s plan said.

Aboriginal treaty rights must be protected.”

Criminal Code of Canada

[C-580] 3. The Act is amended by adding the following after section 117.11:

117.111 For greater certainty, no proceeding for an offence under any of sections 90, 91, 93, 97, 101, 104 and 105 may have the effect of abrogating or derogating from any existing aboriginal or treaty rights of the aboriginal peoples of Canada under section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982.


Firearms Act

[C-580]8. Section 54 of the Act is amended by adding the following after subsection (1):

54. (1) A licence, registration certificate or authorization may be issued only on application made in the prescribed form — which form may be in writing or electronic — or in the prescribed manner. The application must set out the prescribed information and be accompanied by payment of the prescribed fees.

(1.1) Despite subsection (1), no fee shall be paid for a registration certificate for a firearm that is neither a prohibited firearm nor a restricted firearm.

(1.2) For the purpose of identifying an individual who applies for a registration certif- icate for a firearm other than a prohibited firearm or a restricted firearm, a Certificate of Indian Status issued to the individual by the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, when accompanied by a firearms licence issued to the individual, shall be considered sufficient identification of that individual.

So, Natives will still have to get a license and register their long (and other) guns, it’s just that they can’t be prosecuted under the Criminal Code for not doing so…

Also, the proposed FA s 54(1.1) satisfies the “And there should never be a charge for long-gun registration” part of Jack’s plan.  Again, the owners of those evil handguns and prohibited firearms will still have to pay…

[C-580]5. Section 5 of the Firearms Act is amended by adding the following after subsection 5(2):

(2.1) The following records shall be disclosed to a chief firearms officer or, on a reference under section 74, a provincial court judge, in order to determine whether a person is eligible to hold a licence under subsection (1), namely, any record that indicates that the person

(a) has been a member of and discharged from a law enforcement agency or the Canadian Forces or other military entity; or

(b) has applied to become a member of a law enforcement agency or the Canadian Forces or other military entity and has been rejected.

I guess that this has something to do with the “sharing mental health information between the Firearms program, law enforcement and military agencies” – but this seems to encompass more than just “mental health” aspects.  There are any number of reasons to be “discharged” from a police force or the military; I’m not sure if the Canadian Forces use the same nomenclature, but one of the kinds of discharges is “honourably”.

Jack’s plan mentions the Dawson shooting situation, specifically; from Wikipedia:

[Kimveer] Gill briefly received military training from the Canadian Forces Leadership and Recruit School in Saint-Jean, Quebec, from January 17 to February 16, 1999. He had told his friends he wished to eventually become a mercenary. He did not complete his basic training for unknown reasons.[4] He was deemed unsuitable for military service and was voluntarily discharged before receiving extensive weapons training.

Gamil Gharbi, the Ecole Polytechnique shooter, had his application to the Canadian Armed Forces rejected, so this would cover him, too, albeit retroactively…which is symbolic enough, I guess.

Gun-owners’ privacy needs protection too.”

[C-580]9. The [Firearms] Act is amended by adding the following after section 90:

90.1 For greater certainty, records that could be used to identify an individual shall not be released to any person inside or outside Canada, except in the interests of public safety, under a court order or as explicitly prescribed by an Act of Parliament.

This seems to be in response to the RCMP giving EKOS research a whole bunch of gun owner’s information so they could conduct a “customer satisfaction survey”.  Of course, while the CONservative Government deplores the action, it didn’t actually do squat about it.

Mandating the Auditor General to ensure the long-gun registry is cost-effective

[C-580]10. The [Firearms] Act is amended by adding the following after section 94:

94.1 The Governor in Council shall request the Auditor General of Canada to inquire into and report on the operations of the Canadian Firearms Centre starting in the year in which this Act comes into force and in each of the four following years, and to submit each of those reports to Parliament.

This isn’t quite the same as determining if the Canadian Firearms Program is “cost-effective”, and it’s a long way short of Garry Breitkreuz’s original Bill C-301:

26. The [Firearms] Act is amended by adding the following after section 97:

Cost-benefit analysis

97.1 The Auditor General shall be directed to conduct a cost-benefit analysis on each existing firearms control measure every five years to determine its effectiveness at improving public safety, reducing violent crime and keeping firearms out of the hands of criminals.

A real, verifiable “cost-benefit” analysis has never been done – at least, none that haven’t been classified as a “Cabinet Secret” for 20 years, by the Lieberals…

I think I’ll leave off there for now,  and save the “surprises” for tomorrow…

%d bloggers like this: