I’m not sure what the Liberal-friendly version of the expression “Shots fired” is, but whatever it is, it happened last week in Question Period.

Independent Member of Parliament Tony Clement rose with a pointed question for the government, inspired by information Clement received from a source he couldn’t name.

“I am told on good authority that the prime minister has a secret plan to ban legal firearms,” Clement charged. “Apparently this plan is to be executed by cabinet directive, with no debate in Parliament. The prime minister plans to announce this gun ban at the Women Deliver conference to be held in early June in Vancouver, which New Zealand Prime Minister (Jacinda) Ardern will also attend. Could the prime minister confirm or deny this zero-accountability secret plan?”

The question was so specific that it could easily be answered with a yes or a no. But Bill Blair, the minister supposedly tasked with overhauling Canada’s gun laws and curbing organized crime, gave no such clarity.

“I want to assure the House that the government remains absolutely committed to undertaking all measures that are effective in keeping Canadians safe,” Blair said. “As I believe every member of the House would agree, there is no greater responsibility for any order of government than the safety of its citizens and the protection of its kids, and we are prepared to consider whatever measures would be effective in this regard.”

Nowhere in that mush was a direct answer either way, through Blair’s spokesperson later denied Clement’s assertion in a media statement, saying the government has not yet finalized its course of action on gun reform.

True or not, Clement’s belief is plausible, which is why it spread so rapidly through Canada’s community of gun owners, of which I’m a part.

Even if reforms are not announced on the time and date he thinks, his question reveals a troubling and often overlooked possibility—that any sweeping changes to Canada’s gun laws could happen without a parliamentary debate or vote.

With the Canadian government’s view that gun ownership is a privilege and not a right, it would be easy to restrict gun ownership under the cloak of cabinet directives rather than openly and democratically.

This is Clement’s biggest worry, he told me in an interview.

“Cabinet, by its definition, is a secretive and secret process,” he said. “Passing an order-in-council is not done in front of a committee or in front of parliament. It’s done by cabinet ministers in secret. Then Canadians are presented with fait accompli.”

The millions of lawful Canadian gun owners—from farmers to aboriginals to hunters to sport shooters—deserve a debate.

The only times the Liberals want to have such a discussion is in the wake of tragedy, when the emotional climate makes it politically difficult to defend gun ownership.

Policies like a national handgun ban or mandatory central storage are only on the table because of the Danforth Ave. shooting, despite the killer using an illegally-acquired handgun. (But hey, never let facts get in the way of a good narrative.)

Public Safety Minister Ralph Goodale even said the Christchurch mosque attacks—in New Zealand—could justify further gun control in Canada, making it entirely plausible Trudeau would announce measures at an event featuring Ardern, the Kiwi prime minister.

With merely five months until the election, and few sitting legislative days, the only way Trudeau could deliver any changes would be through cabinet fiat. Subverting parliament on contentious issues is always egregious, though it’s especially so when a leader will soon have the opportunity to seek a mandate from the voters.

Process aside, further restrictions on gun ownership in Canada will do nothing, given it’s the illegal guns that are being used so routinely in Toronto’s rising gang homicides.

Toronto Mayor John Tory fancies himself a saviour of lives with his gun amnesty program, though New Zealand’s recent dalliances reveal how fruitless these efforts are.

Only 37 of New Zealand’s 1.2 million guns were turned in under the government’s voluntary surrender program. That’s not a typo—37. These things don’t work because the few people who hand their guns over are not the ones whose gun ownership causes any problems.

Defiant as the government’s denial of Clement’s allegation is, the question still stands of why Blair himself, in the moment, didn’t unequivocally shoot down the question.

It’s possible he wasn’t involved enough in the plans to know one way or another, which wouldn’t surprise me. Also possible is that Clement revealed a previous, abandoned version of the plan. This would mean both Clement and the Prime Minister’s Office are telling the truth.

Or Blair was misrepresenting the government’s plans.

Either way, Clement may have applied the necessary heat for the government to walk this back.

BY: ANTHONY FUREY

There are certain crimes that cannot be left to fester. Like if police find a dead body, they need to find out what happened. But there are other crimes, offences and infractions that happen every day, that while wrong are so minor that we don’t make a big deal about them.

Should you litter? Should you jaywalk? Drink a beer while walking down the street (the horror!)?

Not really.

It’s not considered civic-minded and is against the rules. That said, do you want the police to spend their time (and your tax dollars) investigating these sorts of incidents and harassing the otherwise law-abiding citizens who did them?

The charge that Vice Admiral Mark Norman faced – until it was stayed by the prosecution on Wednesday – is so minor and inconsequential in the grand scheme of things that most Canadians probably don’t even really understand what the original problem was supposed to be in the first place.

Norman was charged with one count of breach of trust related to violating cabinet confidentiality by allegedly disclosing information regarding the shipbuilding procurement process.

It’s a mouthful, but what does it mean? Norman himself said at his Wednesday press conference that military procurement is “a very complicated and obtuse and ultimately ugly process.”

The prosecutor said something similar during her media availability, basically explaining that they had challenges wading through the whole big picture issue in the first place.

The alleged problem, in non-legalese, was that Norman leaked information about the shipbuilding process to the media and it embarrassed the government. And he maintained his innocence throughout.

One of the oddest things about this whole affair in the first place is that leaks – sometimes substantial ones – happen all the time in politics (and especially in Ottawa) and it’s believed that no one has ever in the past been criminally charged for doing so.

The government may not like it, they may not encourage it (well, at least not when it’s something they don’t want out there) and they may show their displeasure – but charge someone?

Norman, the former head of the Navy, could have gone to jail for such a charge. Breach of trust comes with a maximum five year sentence. How is it that the government can’t prosecute returning ISIS fighters but they can prosecute a respected Vice Admiral? Where are their priorities?

And this brings us to the original question, the big question: Why did they charge Mark Norman in the first place?

It’s a discretionary choice, to go back to that example about jaywalking. It didn’t need to be done. But someone chose to do it. And who chose? The prosecution, yes. But how did they even know about something so nitty-gritty in the first place? This normally wouldn’t be on their radar.

Marie Henein, Norman’s star lawyer, reminded the media on Wednesday that the matter was first referred to the RCMP by the Privy Council Office. That’s the top office of bureaucrats that work directly with the Prime Minister to implement his agenda, and was headed up by Michael Wernick throughout most of this saga. It’s like the bureaucratic side of the Prime Minister’s Office.

That’s how all of this happened. Because people who work directly for Trudeau called the cops in on it. And that was wrong.

BY: LEO KNIGHT

On March 3, 2005 the RCMP suffered their worst loss of life among their members when four officers were killed by James Roszko in Mayerthorpe, Alberta.

There were two subsequent reviews, one internal and one external. Both determined the four officers armed only with their nine millimetre service sidearms were badly outgunned by Roszko and all were shot with a .308 calibre rifle.  

The reviews recommended the RCMP supply their members with the more powerful C8 carbines in use by many police agencies across the country. Senior management agreed to get the process going after the 2007 and 2008 reports.

On June 4, 2014, three RCMP officers were killed and two others were wounded by an active shooter armed with long-barrelled weapons in Moncton, New Brunswick. Again, nine years after the incident in Mayerthorpe, they were outgunned. They had no access to any C8 carbines which would have evened the gunfight.

The RCMP, as an organization, was convicted in 2017 under the Canadian Labour Code for failing to provide those members with the training and equipment to deal with such an attack.

You’d almost think that would have lit a fire under the senior management.

You’d think they would have spared no effort to finally put in place the recommendations of the Mayerthorpe reviews and get their members properly equipped and trained.

Yet here we are.

This week, interim Auditor General, Sylvain Ricard, released his spring report which said all front line RCMP officers still don’t have access to the ceramic body armour and carbines needed to respond to a heavily armed active shooter.

Sure, they’ve made progress, but according to Ricard, the roll-out and management of the acquisition, training and supply of the program has been badly mismanaged.

According to the report, by October 2018, they had purchased over 6,000 of the C8 carbines, but still hadn’t identified all of the officers who might need the weapons and training.

In the report Ricard said, “RCMP National Headquarters did not have a full picture of the actual location of the carbines within the divisions,” Ricard wrote. “The RCMP could not confirm that officers who needed the equipment had access to it.”

It’s difficult to claim as an organization, they care about their members. But this is just stunning.

We ask our police officers to keep us safe and we expect them to courageously go toward potential harm to do that. Failing to properly equip and train front line police officers is simply inexcusable.

The Force is having difficulty recruiting and retaining existing members. There’s no wonder why.

I have long referred to the RCMP as 144 years of tradition unhampered by progress. They prove the truth of that statement every day.

An enlightened organization puts its people first and foremost. It hires the best men and women it can. It equips and trains them to do their job and supports them all along the way.  

The RCMP, on the other hand, puts the reputation of the Force first and employees are secondary to that.

Leadership in the RCMP has been woefully lacking for much of the last two decades and certainly current leadership doesn’t appear to be the answer that moribund organization needs.

It’s a sad situation for our national police force. But more sad for those men and women who just want to serve their nation.