Thank you, Chair.
I will introduce this on behalf of Ms. Dancho. She is currently in the House.
This amendment would replace lines 31 to 36 on page 2 with the following:
110.1(1) A member of the immediate family of a person or a person who resides with that person, or an organization authorized to submit an application on their behalf, a peace officer or a medical professional may make an ex parte application to a provincial court judge for an order prohibiting the person against whom the order is sought from possessing any firearm, cross-bow, prohibited weapon, restricted weapon, prohibited device, ammunition, prohibited ammunition or explosive substance, or all such things, if they believe on
What this amendment does is make immediate family members or cohabitating persons eligible to file an ex parte on the request, and it lowers the chance of malicious false claims. We're trying to soften the current language that exists.
There are a couple of things that I want to remind the committee of from what we heard. Almost unanimously from stakeholders, we have heard that Bill C-21's proposed red flag measures are costly, ineffective and redundant. I want to get into some of the information that we actually heard during the study. The National Association of Women and the Law indicated, “Citizens or other organizations, much less potential victims, should not be expected to put themselves at risk by going to court to request action that should be immediate and within the direct responsibility of police.” They went on to say, “Shifting the onus of enforcement to women and third parties, as Bill C-21's 'Red Flag' [laws] attempt to do, is a guaranteed route to increased fatality.”
Actually, Ms. Rathjen from PolySeSouvient said not one women's group asked for this measure. She went on to say that “it's not relevant in the Canadian context, because...victims of abuse can call the police. It's up to the police to...investigate, and they have all the legislative tools necessary to remove the weapons.”
She went on to say that the measure is dangerous and that it could allow police officers to “offload” responsibility onto victims, and that “the existence of such measures will undermine reforms that need to take place [when] police don't take complaints seriously”.
The current system is the best system.
Another lady by the name of Louise Riendeau from Regroupement des maisons pour femmes victimes de violence conjugale said that not only do they find this measure “unnecessary” but that it “may even be counterproductive for victims.” They recommended that clauses 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12, which introduce the red flag measures, be removed from the bill, and said that victims have neither the energy nor the moral strength to go to court to have weapons withdrawn in addition to taking all the steps to protect themselves or flee domestic violence.
Wendy Cukier from the Coalition for Gun Control said, “I would argue that it's the police responsibility to keep guns away.... It's not private citizens' responsibility. In my view, private citizens should be able to notify the police someone is at risk and expect the police to take action.”
Angela MacDougall from Battered Women's Support Services indicated:
Though the intention of the red flag is good, it creates potential conditions that put an unreasonable burden on a victim or survivor to address their safety. We've discussed this a bit so far. When that happens and we create that kind of opening, where the survivor is somehow responsible for their safety, the system orients itself in that way and begins to question whether the victim has done everything she should have done, based on the interpretation.
There's a lot of work to be done already, just in terms of the amount of victim blaming that exists. The red flag, although I think the intentions are solid, creates another potential loophole and a chasm in which survivors can find themselves without an advocate and without understanding how to navigate the system. They are then blamed if they are not following through in the ways in which the system thinks they should with respect to this measure....
We heard from police agencies who deal with this. Chief McFee from the Edmonton Police Service said:
The “red flag” law is well-intended. However, many of the proposed powers already exist under section 117 of the Criminal Code. As it stands, a law would pose a significant draw on police resources should numerous applications be granted at a time when many Canadian police services are stretched thin. This could further increase service demands.
Brian Sauvé from the National Police Federation indicated:
We are seeing in a number of provinces that there are not enough Crown prosecutors, there are not enough judges and there's not enough trial space. Even if we end up in a court proceeding for a red flag or yellow flag, however that might look, is it going to be addressed in a timely manner? If it's not addressed in a timely manner, is that person continually put at risk? The downstream impacts of this are something we need to consider.
André Gélinas from the police in Montreal said:
...when a person is in danger, the first people to call are always the police. It would take an inordinate amount of time to go before the courts to try and get a firearm licence suspended, as is proposed in these amendments, and the courts are already overwhelmed.
The problem...is that people can go before the courts to explain their point of view in good faith, but the judge won't get the police officers' perspective. Police officers have information that the judge cannot access at that time. For example, the judge does not have access to data banks or to police expertise. He or she will simply have to base their decision on the person before them who has expressed their concerns.
I was really intrigued with some of the comments from our indigenous groups throughout the committee. Terry Teegee from the British Columbia Assembly of First Nations said:
...we are very concerned about the lack of clarity with respect to red [and] yellow flag laws that are applicable to first nations people specifically on reserve and in first nations communities.
Handguns and assault-style weapons are not used for hunting. However, the provisions of Bill C-21 will establish red [and] yellow flag laws and provide no guidelines for how those new laws would apply to first nations.
This is significant, as it may [impact] the possession of firearms such as long guns or rifles, which are commonly and responsibly used by first nations...for hunting purposes.
Chief Heather Bear from the Federation of Sovereign Indigenous Nations indicated that—
