John Ivison: When it comes to guns, Canadian common sense and pragmatism likely will prevail

OTTAWA — The public outcry over the Liberals’ proposed gun legislation is a reassuring sign that, despite aberrant levels of political polarization, Canada remains a land of moderation, pragmatism and common sense.

The past two decades have seen Canadian political parties look south for inspiration — namely, to a political strategy first propounded by campaign guru Karl Rove to get George W. Bush re-elected in 2004 — the base strategy. It preached the lesson that parties should appeal primarily to their own base, rather to moderate, “persuadable” swing voters.

Rove’s research suggested that a majority of voters had largely decided for or against a candidate, so base motivation was more important than swing motivation. Its proponents argue that appealing, in this case, to evangelicals released a vast, untapped source of political energy that boosted the turnout at events and increased the numbers of volunteers.

In the age of social media, these people have become emissaries, if not missionaries, spreading the gospel of their party.

The base strategy has been adopted by all parties in Canada and influences everything they say and do.

It certainly appears that the decision to parachute two controversial amendments into the government’s gun bill, C-21, at the committee stage on the eve of the 33rd anniversary of the Ecole Polytechnique massacre was taken because it was judged to be a useful political wedge. As one minister sanitized it privately, it would offer voters “a stark choice.”

The bill originally sought to put a freeze on handgun sales and tighten gun ownership, a move opposed by Conservatives but supported by the NDP and the Bloc Québécois.

But the Liberals have shattered that progressive coalition by introducing the 11th hour amendments without consultation, offering an “evergreen” definition of what constitutes an “assault weapon” and, even more flagrantly, submitting a 480-page list of prohibited weapons, some of which (for example, the wood-stock, single shot Ruger No. 1) clearly do not meet that definition.

The Liberals banked that the move would be wildly popular among a progressive, downtown voting base that wouldn’t know a Remington 870 shotgun from a Remington typewriter.

But Indigenous groups, hunters and farmers are up in arms at seeing previously legal weapons on the prohibited list, while both the NDP and Bloc want the amendments removed or watered down. They may be as rare as hen’s teeth, but even Liberal members with rural ridings, such as Yukon MP Brendan Hanley, have broken ranks with the governing party, saying the bill would negatively impact constituents who hunt for food and recreation.

What is encouraging is that the base strategy has been found wanting. Governing parties cannot legislate based on what might raise more donations or go down well with supporters on Twitter.

The base strategy requires that leaders are willing to repel opponents in order to stoke the emotions of your own adherents.

But, in a minority government, you have to be careful not to arraign everyone but your base against you. The Conservatives found this out the hard way in 2008, when, out of the blue, they proposed to end publicly funded per vote subsidies, sparking the coalition crisis that nearly ended Stephen Harper’s days as prime minister.

Justin Trudeau is obviously sensitive to the fact that his government has overreached and says the government is now willing to take another look at the list of prohibited weapons and whittle it down and remove some hunting rifles.

Government sources say mistakes were made in the drafting of the amendment, when the “evergreen” definition was applied to thousands of models of rifles and shotguns by officials in the Department of Justice, with the unintended consequence that some weapons were added that are widely used by hunters and farmers. “It was difficult to calibrate 100 per cent,” said one senior source.

The obvious question then is: Why was the list released without consultation so late in the day, after the committee had heard from almost all its expert witnesses?

The obvious answer is that the government was trying to sneak one by the opposition and motivate its base.

But the strategy has rebounded; the government will now be forced to bow to pressure by inviting more witnesses to committee and amend its own amendment. A bill that could have been passed by Christmas will now lag into next year.

Trudeau’s tactics will only confirm to many rural Canadians that they can’t trust the government or our institutions. But the response should prompt the exact opposite reaction.

Despite the amplification of polarization by social media and populist politics, due process and the voice of the broader society have prevailed.

jivison@postmedia.com

Twitter.com/IvisonJ

1. Ivison: Justin Trudeau, China and the death of free trade

2. John Ivison: The Liberals’ multi-billion-dollar COVID-aid cockup is just the beginning

Get the latest from John Ivison straight to your inbox