As I said, I think the provisions were well intentioned. I do think they're based on the experience in the U.S., which is not relevant to Canada. We already have continuous eligibility checking built into the process. We already have a principle, which is that the firearms officer can remove a firearm or deny a licence to someone who is a risk to themselves or any other person. What we don't have are the provisions that require that to be done. What we don't have are the provisions that provide mechanisms whereby if a complaint is made, action is taken. From my own experience in reporting a case, I can tell you that I was on hold with the Ontario firearms office for 24 hours. I literally put the phone down, went home, came back the next morning and was still listening to music. That has to stop.
I think what we will do is provide some language, but in general we agree with the Canadian Association of Emergency Physicians in their concerns that this could be perceived as downloading responsibility to citizens rather than holding police and officials accountable. We saw the consequences of that most recently with the mass casualty inquiry in Nova Scotia .