Bill C-71 is a red herring

C-21 ignores gangsters, harasses PAL holdersThe Trudeau Liberals are using 'gun violence' as a red herring to distract the public from their failure to deal with either urban or rural gang violence.

Bill C-71 is a Red Herring

Submission to the Federal Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security on Bill C-71

April 2018

Gary A Mauser, Ph.D., Professor Emeritus

Institute for Canadian Urban Research Studies

Beedie School of Business

Simon Fraser University

Thank you for this opportunity to present my observations to the Committee on Bill C-71, “An Act to amend certain Acts and Regulations in relation to firearms.”

I am concerned that Bill C-71 is founded on faulty assumptions. Assumptions that ignore the real problem of violent gang crime to focus exclusively – and unnecessarily — on law-abiding firearms owners — hunters, sport shooters, and firearms retailers — individuals who do not pose a threat to public safety. The problem is violent crime, not firearms ownership.

There are many egregious problems with Bill C-71. In essence, this bill is a red herring, intended to distract the Canadian public from the government’s failure to deal with gang violence. Here, I will content myself with briefly identifying a few errors in the underlying assumptions in the bill.

By selecting the year 2013 as the base of comparison, the government abuses statistics to argue shootings are increasing. The year 2013 is an outlier.

The year 2013 saw Canada’s lowest rate of criminal homicides in 50 years (1.45 per 100,000), and the lowest rate of fatal shootings ever recorded by Statistics Canada (0.38 per 100,000).  Naturally, this results in 2016 (1.68 homicides and 0.61 fatal shootings per 100,000) being an increase from 2013.

Total homicides have declined at least since the 1990s, not the “steady increase” the government claims. If anything, stabbings have steadily increased, not shootings.

Firearm homicides have declined from 32% in the 1990s to 30% of homicides since 2010, while stabbing homicides have increased from 30% in the 1990s to 33% since 2010.


Canada has a gang problem, not a gun problem. Criminal violence is driven by a small number of repeat offenders, not by the many Canadians who legally own firearms.

Statistics Canada reports that there were 223 firearms-related homicides in 2016;  the bulk of the which (141 of the 223) were gang related. There are many instruments available to commit murder for those so inclined. Knives, clubs and fists suffice for many killers.

Licensed gun owners (Possession and Acquisition Licence holders) pose no threat to public safety. PAL holders had a homicide rate lower (0.60 per 100,000 licensed gun owners) than the national homicide rate  (1.85 per 100,000 people the general population).

While Canada’s legal guns are more likely to be found outside of metropolitan areas, the vast bulk (121 of the 141) of gang related homicides involving firearms were committed in metropolitan areas in 2016, according to Statistics Canada.

Surveys find that 13% of households in urban areas report owning a firearm, while 30% in rural areas do so. Despite the lower legal gun density, gun crime is higher in urban Canada.

In urban Canada (defined as Census Metropolitan Areas), firearms are involved in 33% of homicides while outside of CMAs, firearms are involved in just 25% of homicides.[1]

Minister Goodale is correct in pointing out the higher rates of gun violence in some rural areas. Unfortunately, property crime, violent crime (including gun crimes) are quite high on First Nations Reserves, which predominate in rural Canada (among non-CMA’s with populations under 10,000). These problems are particularly acute in the Prairie Provinces.

There is no convincing empirical support for the assumption in Bill C-71 that tightening up restrictions on law-abiding firearms owners (PAL holders) will somehow restrict the flow of guns to violent criminals, and therefore, contribute to reducing gang violence.

Criminologists agree that no substantial evidence exists that legislation restricting access to firearms to the general public is effective in reducing criminal violence.[2]

Criminals are not getting their firearms from law-abiding Canadians, either by stealing them or through straw purchases. At the height of the long-gun registry, only 9% of firearms involved in homicides were registered (135 out of the 1,485 firearms homicide from 2003 to 2010), Statistics Canada revealed in a Special Request. To put this another way, just 3% of the 4,811 total homicides involved registered firearms during that time period.

All reputable research indicates that gang crime — urban or rural — is driven by smuggled firearms that flow to Canada as part of the illegal drug trade. Analyses of guns recovered from criminal activity in Toronto, Ottawa, Vancouver and the Prairie Provinces show that between two-thirds and 90% of these guns involved in violent crime had been smuggled into Canada.[3]

The claim that criminals get their guns from “domestic sources” is false and misleading. This claim cannot justify additional restrictions on firearms ownership and use by PAL holders.

The first problem with this claim is the unwarranted implication that the term “domestic sources” is synonymous with PAL holders. The authorities are embarrassed to admit there is a large pool of illegal firearms in Canada (and almost as many unlicensed gun owners as there are PAL holders).

When licensing was mandated in 2001, between one-third and one-half of then-law-abiding Canadian gun owners declined to apply for a PAL or POL.[4] Even though official estimates of civilian gun owners ranged from 3.3 million to over 4.5 million in 2001, fewer than 2 million licenses were issued.[5] As of 31 December 2016, the Canada Firearms Program reported there were 2,076,840 individual firearms licence holders.

Secondly, the claim that criminals get guns from “domestic sources” is based on an inflated definition of “criminals” and “crime guns.” Traditionally, “crime guns” are defined as guns used (or suspected of being used) in criminal violence, however, Canadian police have now considerably expanded the definition by including any gun “illegally acquired.”

The traditional definition of a “crime gun,” as illustrated by the 2007 Ontario Provincial Weapons Enforcement Unit (PWEU):

A “crime gun” is any firearm:

That is used, or has been used in a criminal offence;

That is obtained, possessed or intended to be used to facilitate criminal


That has a removed or obliterated serial number.[6]

This traditional definition of “crime gun” is identical to that continuously used by the FBI in the US and the British Home Office.

This new definition, in addition to guns used in violent crimes, now includes guns confiscated for any administrative violation (e.g., unsafe storage) as well as “found guns,” including guns recovered from homes of suicides (even when the suicide did not involve a firearm).

“A firearm is a crime gun if it meets any one of the following criteria:

“any firearm that is illegally acquired, suspected to have been used in

crime (includes found firearms),

has an obliterated serial number, or

has been illegally modified (e.g., barrel significantly shortened).”

(Page 10 of the 2014 FIESD Report).[7]

The term “found guns” is a “trash can” category. One semi-official description is:

“Found firearms not immediately linked to a criminal occurrence are referred to the Suspicious Firearms Index. Law enforcement officers may come into possession of firearms suspected of being associated with criminal activity, but which are not the subject of an active investigation. These typically include found and seized firearms where no charges are pending.” [8]

In sum, the claim that criminals get their guns from “domestic sources” is misleading and cannot justify additional restrictions on firearms ownership and use by PAL holders. Given the large pool of firearms held by unlicensed Canadians, it is unsurprising that guns seized by the police or surrendered to them are “domestically sourced.” But these are not guns used to commit violent crimes; those are predominantly smuggled.

Bill C-71 is unnecessary and does not contribute to public safety. Canadian gun laws are already enormously complex and constitute a maze for unwary firearms owners. Since 1998, gun crime is predominantly administrative violations not violent crimes.

In 2012 Statistics Canada reported that there were 12,320 administrative firearms violations in Canada (outside Quebec) compared with 5,575 “firearm-related” violent crimes [9] or the 1,325 crimes where a firearm was used to injure a victim.

The final total of administrative violations for Canada is somewhat higher than 12,320 because information from Quebec was excluded from this count due to Statistics Canada’s concerns over statistical irregularities in Quebec reports. [See Text box 5].

According to a special request to Statistics Canada, very few (4%) of these administrative crimes involved violence. [10] Almost all were merely paper crimes. In 96% of these cases, the gun owner in question was just charged with administrative violations, without involving any additional charges for violent crimes.

Summary and conclusions

By conflating gang violence with gun violence, Bill C-71 breaks the government’s repeated promises that criminal legislation will rely upon “evidence-based decision making.” Bill C-71 exaggerates the problem with guns by relying upon false assumptions to target law-abiding citizens instead of criminals.

Bill C-71 is a red herring. The real problem, ignored in this bill, is gang violence.  Bill C-71 focuses on PAL holders, not violent criminals. Hunters and sport shooters are not the problem. Legal guns are not a major conduit for criminals to get guns. The public is not at risk from law-abiding PAL holders.

The additional regulatory complexity created by Bill C-71 will increase demands upon government services and increase costs to taxpayers. This can only reduce public safety.

The problem is violent crime, not ‘gun crime.’ When will the government get serious about gang violence?


[1] Professor Gary Mauser, Special Request, Statistics Canada, 2017. Number, CRO0163028.

[2] Baker, J. and S. McPhedran. 2007. Gun Laws and Sudden Death: Did the Australian Firearms Legislation of 1996 Make a Difference? British J. Criminology. 47, 455–469; Kates, Don B., and Gary Mauser. 2007. Would Banning Firearms Reduce Murder and Suicide? A Review of International Evidence. Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy 30, 2 (Spring): 649–94; Kleck, Gary (1997). Targeting Guns: Firearms and Their Control. Aldine de Gruyter; Langmann, Caillin. Canadian Firearms Legislation and Effects on Homicide 1974 to 2008, Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 2012, 27(12) 2303–2321; Mauser, Gary and Richard Holmes. An Evaluation of the 1977 Canadian Firearms Legislation, Evaluation Review, 1992 16: 603; Mauser, Gary and Dennis Maki, An evaluation of the 1977 Canadian firearm legislation: robbery involving a firearm; Applied Economics, 2003, 35:4, 423-436; National Research Council of the National Academies, Firearms and Violence: A Critical Review 7;m (2004), available at

[3] Cook, Philip, W Cukier and K Krause, “ The illicit Firearms Trade in North America,“ Criminology and Criminal Justice. Vol 9(3), 2009, 265-286. Toronto Mayor Tory told the Guns and Gangs summit meeting (7 March 2018) that at least 50% of the guns used in homicide had been smuggled, and that just 2% had no connection to the drug trade. Gary Mauser, “Will Gun Control Make Us Safe? Debunking the Myths. An evaluation of firearm laws in Canada and in the English Commonwealth,” invited address to the Ontario Police College, Toronto, Ontario, May 24-25, 2006.

[4] Professor Gary Mauser. The Case of the Missing Canadian Gun Owners. Presented to the annual meeting of the American Society of Criminology, Atlanta, Georgia, November 2001.


[6] Minutes of the Toronto Police Services Board, January 22, 2004.

[7] Professor Gary Mauser and Dennis Young. Critique of the RCMP’s Firearms and Investigative Services Directorate (FIESD) 2014 Annual Report. The definition is on page 10 of the FIESD report.  

[8] Heemskirk, Tony and Eric Davies. A report on illegal movement of firearms in British Columbia. PSSG-09-003. 2009 justice/police/publications/independent/special-report-illegal-movement-firearms.pdf

[9] A firearm need not be used in a crime for Statistics Canada to considers a crime “firearms-related.” A crime is “firearms-related” if a firearm the “most serious weapon present” during the commission of the crime (or is later found at the scene).

[10] Professor Gary Mauser, Statistics Canada Special Request number 85C9996, 17 May 2017.


10 Comments on "Bill C-71 is a red herring"

  1. Why is the media not covering the fact that gang violence was not addressed regardless of the content. Let’s put harsher regulations on good drivers so we can sweep drunk, stoned or just plain bad drivers out of the lime light. Lowest hanging fruit easy to take advantage of. This government should be put on the spot in regards to its election promise and stop dodging the bullet (full pun intended). I have to say I am a bit taxed about paying the salaries for a propaganda wagon like the Communist Broadcasting Corporation and listen to them distort facts when this is exactly what they should cover.

  2. The solution: support Maxime Bernier of Conservative party Canada!! This guy stands firmly in protecting and representing law abiding gun owners.
    We could be as pissed off as possible, but it won’t help us! Sighing, prayer or whatever else, it’s ineffective! Support the politicians who will do something about this problem.

  3. Excellent report, unfortunately it needs to be seen in main stream media. How else is the general non shooting public going to be educated on the facts?

    • Thank you for your kind comments. If you think the general public should see this report, I urge you to send the link to various news outlets … and your local MP.

      Reports receive much more credence this way than if I send them myself.

      Thanks again.

  4. This article is what Mr.Goodale should have included in his “extensive consulation” when drafting C-71. Could have read it and saved all his time trying to create a public safety solution that is so off the mark.

    • Thanks for reading and appreciating my post.

      Mr. Goodale isn’t actually attempting to find an effective public safety solution; his goal is quite different. His strategy is to re-elect Liberals. The Liberal Party of Canada believes they are superior to the rest of us.

      Mr. Goodale’s policies are designed to motivate the anti-gun forces in larger cities and suburbs, and to keep the RCMP happy. That’s it. He doesn’t care about Western Canada or rural Canada. His supporters aren’t there. If those of us who believe in civilian firearms ownership can remain calm and rational, we can win support from the undecided people who have some respect for traditional Canadian values.

    • Thank you for your kind comments. Mr Goodale is just working to win votes. He doesn’t care a fig for truth or fighting gun violence.

      Please help defeat the Liberals in next year’s election by volunteering for a local candidate, donating money, or helping a pro-gun group somewhere in the country.

      Thanks again.

  5. Forget trying to change anti-gun people, they are lost. The non shooters, the people who know very little about guns and the different activities related to them, those are the ones we have a chance to educate. With a calm well informed approach most will listen and see through the liberals devious ways. My way of achieving this is by inviting them to the range so they can see for them selves, I’m not trying to convince them to become shooters, I want to expose them to the culture so they can see there’s nothing to fear. All anti-gunners are afraid of guns and usually for unfounded reasons, it’s very difficult to convince someone there’s nothing to be afraid of. Everyone I’ve taken to the range so far leaves with a huge smile and most ask me how they go about getting their PAL.

  6. John Domovich | May 7, 2018 at 8:33 pm | Reply

    Hello Gary. I recently sent this email (not exactly word for word) to Goodale. I have my doubts that it will be read by him.

    Dear Sir:
    I am 83 yrs. old and have had firearms since I was a youngster – one form or another. I have read excerpts of the proposed Bill C-71 and have some misgivings about its efficacy to stem the tide of criminal violence or activity. It appears to me it’s like a dogcatcher who only picks up the little strays that will readily approach -with tail wagging (Law abiding gun owners) – while the troublesome hounds (criminals) jump over fences and make good their escape. I call Bill C-71 the Dogcatcher’s Act and therefore urge you and other proponents of this odious piece of legislation to re-think what it will do to law-abiding individuals like me.

    You do not have to show those who are anti guns that you are doing something about crime. Criminals do not register their firearms.

    Instead of spending millions of dollars (maybe billions) on a non-effective Act, the money should be distributed to municipality’s coffers to enable them to hire more police.

  7. I have a licence to own a firearms , criminals don’t, end of argument. I get a criminal background check every day on my licence all for the sake of ‘safety,’ that stupid word that paranoid androids(anti gun peoples) use as a basis for an argument . Our country spent billions on a long-gun registry, and on a system that has probably never be use in a court of law to convict a criminal. Our government even tried too sell our system to other countries.One example is the NZ Police and they declined due to expense and inefficiency. 12.6 prohib law was a way to get 300,000 taken away from regular citizens, it was never about safety.No one is benefiting from these ‘law’ cough cough jerk tactics.

    When there is a school shooting in the US for example ; Florida, and law enforcement fails to do their job, they pass blame, and it feels like I’m forced to justify myself to anti-gun peoples for the crime. But yet nobody talks about metal health, it’s a subject that politicians just throw under they bed . They always hold the gun responsible, and the media makes tones of money off the ratings by telling dumb stories. Bill C-71 is a step back , in my view it allows a Federal Police force to write legislation, which is VERY unconstitutional and lazy on the governments end. Part of living in a democracy is having the right to choose, I choose to have firearms, and I have the right to decide what to do with my property. Bill C-71 is going to create a whole new set of problems, you just have look at the the UK. Funny how a lot of handguns that citizens were forced to give up , ended up on Holts auction block to sell to rich collectors. Prohibition does not work! Look at Al Capone, prohibition made that guy a multi millionaire so why make criminals rich. Tell Gooddale if he wants votes come up with a universal dent plan like MSP , help your fellow man , don’t try to put him in jail for target shooting.

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published.