Thank you for the question.
Intimate partner violence is something that we really need to look at carefully, because it is a form of violence that is far more frequent in rural communities, where there are more guns in people's homes, just as we see more suicide in rural communities and murders of police officers.
The provisions in the legislation, which deal with restricting and removing firearms from people who have offences or protection orders against them, are all good moves. There are some nuances that we'll write about that some of the women's organizations have proposed. Remember that the law allows for a firearms officer to refuse a licence or remove firearms from anyone who is considered a threat to themselves or any other person, and the risks associated with domestic violence, suicide and mass shootings are all interrelated. It's very important that those provisions be understood as being broad and that the firearms officers be obligated to remove firearms when there is risk. This is partly legislative, but it's also partly implementation of the law.
However well-intentioned, the pieces of the legislation that we have concerns about are the provisions that require citizens to go to court for emergency prohibition orders. Our view is that it's the responsibility of the state. That's the responsibility of police. We would prefer to see a hotline that is served, serviced and acted upon in short order when concerns are brought forward.
We know from the Desmond inquiry in Nova Scotia, for example, that people raised concerns about the killer, who was a veteran and had access to firearms, but no action was taken. We've seen way too many inquiries and inquests that showed that people had information that someone was potentially a threat to themselves or someone else, yet action was not taken. We need to really tighten up not just the legislation but also the implementation of the legislation and the accountability that police and firearms officers have for keeping us safe.
Thank you for the question.