Good evening.
I thank the members of the committee for letting us bring our perspective to the issue of gun control based on our experience with thousands of women who are victims of domestic violence.
The Regroupement des maisons pour femmes victimes de violence conjugale includes 46 assistance and shelter homes located in different regions of Quebec. Our organization feels that Bill C‑21 will certainly improve the safety of Canadians.
Tonight, we will be talking specifically about the safety of women who are victims of domestic violence. We would like to highlight two positive aspects of the bill as it relates to domestic violence. The first is the fact that a firearms licence will not be issued when there is a protection order in place. The second is the fact that the licence can be revoked if a person has committed acts of domestic violence.
On the other hand, we are concerned about some of the provisions in Bill C‑21.
The first, called “red flag” measures, enable a person to go directly to court to request the revocation of a firearms licence. Since victims and those close to people with issues can already go to the police department or the chief firearms officer, we think these measures are unnecessary and may even be counterproductive for victims. We are concerned that police officers, instead of taking the investigative steps to revoke a licence, will ask victims to do so themselves. In our view, it would be much more burdensome for a victim to go to court than to go to the police department.
Therefore, we recommend that clauses 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12, which introduce these “red flag” measures, be withdrawn. As we have stated, we believe that the current system, where concerned individuals can go to the police department or to the office of the chief firearms officer, is more appropriate and better adapted to the reality. Victims don't have the energy or the fortitude to go to court to request licence revocation at a time when they have all kinds of steps to take to escape violence and protect themselves.
The second provision of concern to us is the provision indicating that the person whose licence is revoked would have a so‑called reasonable period to deliver their firearms to the police or otherwise dispose of them. While a search is possible, it is not automatic. In addition, the period may give some abusive spouses or ex‑spouses time to kill their spouse or children. Therefore, we believe that firearms should be delivered promptly, to a police officer.
Improvements can also be made to other aspects of the bill. In our view, it would be wise to include a definition of spousal or domestic violence in the bill. This would make it possible for a licence to be revoked in cases of domestic violence. It would also ensure that police and chief firearms officers consider the entire situation, not just the physical acts of violence that constitute offences.
This definition should cover all aspects of coercive violence or control. The Divorce Act already contains such a definition. Domestic or family violence is not just physical or sexual abuse that is an offence, but is expressed in a variety of manifestations that are intended to control a spouse and her children.
This evening, I am submitting to the committee tools that our association has just produced for judicial actors. The documents titled “Comprendre le contrôle coercitif” and “Principales manifestations du contrôle coercitif” outline many of the tactics used by abusive spouses to infringe on the freedom and safety of victims. I am also adding the document “Le contrôle coercitif, prédicteur de risques homicidaires.”
Research has demonstrated the links between coercive control and spousal homicide. For example, in the United Kingdom, a study of 358 spousal homicides showed the presence of coercive control in 92% of cases. In Canada, other studies found that spousal homicides occurred in the context of separation and that homicide or attempted homicide was the first act of physical violence for one-third of victims.
I think we really need to go further and expand the scope of the bill. Police officers and chief firearms officers need to be given all the elements necessary to recognize the presence of coercive control, rather than just looking at incidents of physical violence. Inserting a definition of violence in the bill that includes coercive control would be a first step
Police response can also be greatly improved, and police officers can be made to take victims' concerns seriously by being provided with training to assess situations based on known risk factors.
I am a member of the committee that reviews domestic violence deaths in Quebec. In the vast majority of cases, several risk factors were present, but the responders often did not recognize them. Therefore, it is really necessary to provide the police and the office of the chief firearms officer with an exhaustive list of risk factors related to domestic or family violence, which will enable them to handle the requests with all the necessary seriousness. They also need to be trained beforehand to recognize the presence of domestic violence even when there is no physical assault or offence. The tools I have submitted to the committee could be used for these purposes.
Other improvements are also desired. We have read the brief filed by PolySeSouvient and the brief filed by the National Association of Women and the Law, and we fully support them. They contain a number of recommendations for better gun control and safety for women.
As I said, we believe that Bill C‑21 is a step in the right direction. However, we hope that improvements will be made to ensure better protection for women and children who are victims of domestic violence.
We remain available to the committee for discussion.