Senate Committee — SECD — Brief — 2023-10-10_secd_c21_brief_nawl_e

SECD / Brief / 2023-10-10_secd_c21_brief_nawl_e

Senate Committees

October 2023 Bill C-21:

An Act to amend certain Acts and to make certain consequential amendments (firearms) BRIEF BY The National Association of Women and the Law And endorsed by the following organizations: Action ontarienne contre la violence faite aux femmes Association féministe d’éducation et d’action sociale Calgary Legal Guidance Canadian Federation of University Women Ending Violence Association of Canada Fédération des femmes du Québec Fédération des maisons d’hébergement pour femmes Luke’s Place Support and Resource Centre for Women and Children National Council of Women of Canada Network of Women with Disabilities NOW Ontario Association of Interval & Transition Houses Persons Against Non-State Torture Regroupement des maisons pour femmes victimes de violence conjugale South Asian Legal Clinic of Ontario Women’s Shelters Canada Women’s Centre for Social Justice

The National Association of Women & the Law 1404 Scott Street, Ottawa, Ontario, K1Y 2N2 www.nawl.ca | info@nawl.ca The National Association of Women & the Law BILL C-21 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE SENATE About NAWL The National Association of Women and the Law (NAWL) works to achieve substantive equality and the realization of human rights for all women in Canada through legal education, research, strategic intervention, coalition work, and feminist law reform advocacy, particularly at the federal level.

Since our founding in 1974, we are proud to have had a major role in achieving significant milestones for Canadian women’s equality, and for our feminist legal analysis and advocacy to have impacted countless laws and policies across the country—most notably in relation to sexual assault legislation, the Canadian Human Rights Act, and sections 15 and 28 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Today, we continue to write briefs and discussion papers and appear before Parliamentary and Senate committees.

We also meet with decision makers to influence the law-making process on current and emerging feminist law reform priorities. Ending violence against women is one of our three priority areas (together with reproductive rights and women’s rights in relation to the climate crisis). Last winter, we founded the #Women4GunControl coalition and submitted a brief to the House of Commons regarding Bill C-21. The House of Commons adopted almost all of our recommendations regarding intimate partner violence provisions. Overall position on the bill We support Bill C-21 and recommend its quick adoption.

While weaker in its original form, the bill now contains stronger measures to protect women who are victims of family and intimate partner violence. This brief will explain the changes made to the bill following our brief to House of Commons’ Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security (SECU), as well as highlight a few remaining issues. Despite strong advocacy by the #Women4GunControl coalition, the SECU committee did not adopt a ban on existing assault-style firearms.

While we are deeply disappointed with this outcome, it is our impression that the government made all reasonable efforts to generate majority agreement among parties on such a measure, and that the House of Commons is unlikely to adopt a legislated comprehensive ban on assault-style firearms at this time. However, we remain hopeful that the government will follow through on its promise to ban assault weapons through the enactment of regulations.

3 We also oppose the ex-parte “red flag” provisions that enable victims of intimate partner violence to go to court themselves to apply for an emergency prohibition order. We believe this measure erodes the responsibility of law enforcement and other government officials to implement the law. We also believe that this new measure is impractical for women who, at the time of separation, are in greatest immediate danger and are unlikely to be able to advocate for themselves in additional and complex court proceedings. Despite the opposition of many women’s groups, the SECU committee adopted the red flag provisions.

Overall and despite these issues, we believe that C-21 is a strong bill and an important advancement for gun control and for women’s safety. We encourage the Senate to adopt it as quickly as possible. We also strongly urge this and any subsequent government to continue to take all necessary steps to ensure that Canada’s firearms control regime effectively protects and promotes the safety of women, our families, and our communities.

Returning firearms to the authorities in dangerous situations Pre-amendments: Bill C-21 allowed gun owners whose licence was revoked to choose to deliver the firearm to law enforcement or to otherwise dispose of it as they please ; it also authorize d judges to return firearms to the individual during their contestation of the chief firearms officer’s decision. The problem: Allowing gun owners who se licence is revoked to dispose of their firearm as they please creates safety risks.

For example, a gun owner could give or sell his gun to his friend, roommate or brother with the understanding that he will still have access to it. In particular, judges should not have the discretion to return a firearm, removed by reason of domestic violence, for the gun owner to “lawfully dispose” of it. There is no legitimate interest for the gun owner that would outweigh the heightened risk that this possibility poses. Individuals who are dangerous and know that this is their last chance to use the gun would have had it in their possession for up to 30 days.

Returning the gun to a person who has lost their licence is contrary to the spirit and intent of the bill: to keep guns away from violent and dangerous abusers. Amendments: The SECU committee adopted our recommendation to remove the option to lawfully dispose of the gun throughout the Firearm-related intimate partner violence is more common in rural areas. Having access to a firearm is linked to a more than tenfold increase in the likelihood that a man will kill his partner, as opposed to committing non- fatal violence.

Twenty-five percent of female victims of firearm- related violent crimes were victimized by a current or former intimate partner, as opposed to 2% of male victims of firearm-related violent crimes. [Source: Final Three facts about firearms and violence against women

The National Association of Women & the Law 1404 Scott Street, Ottawa, Ontario, K1Y 2N2 www.nawl.ca | info@nawl.ca bill and instead demand delivery to a peace officer. See

section 36 of the bill (section 70.2 of the Firearms Act) and

section 37 of the bill (sections 72(4), 72(5), and 72(6) of the Firearms Act). Remaining issues: Sections 72(7) to 72(10) of the Act were not amended to remove the option to lawfully dispose of the firearm. They enable a judge to order the return of the firearm to the owner while they contest the decision of the chief firearms officer. We believe sections 72(8) to 72(10) should have been removed and replaced with a

section stating that the gun owner only retrieves their firearm once the issue has been finally determined in their favour. Removal of the employment exception Pre-amendments: Bill C-21 amends the Firearms Act so that individuals who commit domestic violence or are subject to a protection order get their licence revoked. However,

section 70.3 enabled a chief firearms officer to issue a conditional licence i n cases where the rev ocation ‘constitutes a virtual prohibition against employment in the only vocation open to the individual’. The problem: A job that requires using a gun is never the only vocation open to an individual. Regardless of an individual’s past or qualifications, there will always be jobs available to them that do not have that requirement, including jobs that do not require any particular qualification. Therefore, we were concerned about how this

section would be interpreted and how permissive chief firearm officers may be in granting conditional licences not based on need, but based on an individual’s job preference. Amendments: The SECU committee removed the employment exemption. Remaining issue: Note that this

section does not apply to police officers, because

section 117.07 of the Criminal Code exempts “public officers” (defined inclusively of police officers in the regulations) from firearms-related offences under the Criminal Code and the Firearms Act. Police officers who commit family violence are still a gap area. Licence revocation in cases of domestic violence Pre-amendments: Bill C -21 state d that a chief firearms officer had to revoke an individual’s licence if they “determine[d] that [the] individual who holds [the] licence has engaged in

an act of domestic violence or stalking”. In the French version of the bill, the chief firearms officer had to be “convinced” (convaincu) that the individual had engaged in such

an act. The problem: We raised concerns about giving chief firearms officers broad discretion to “determine” whether domestic violence has occurred. Moreover, we argued that the bill should adopt the bias of erring on the side of safety when there is danger. It is important to recognize that a false negative (failing to identify a situation of domestic violence and failing to remove the gun) is more likely, and can have more dramat ic consequences, than a false positive (losing one’s gun without having engaged in domestic violence). The threshold was too vague and too stringent. Additionally, there were no timelines for the revocation of the licence.

5 Amendments: The SECU committee adopted our recommended language to curtail discretion and prioritise safety: Revocation — domestic violence 70.1

(1) If a chief firearms officer has reasonable grounds to suspect that an individual who holds a licence may have engaged in

an act of domestic violence or stalking, the chief firearms officer must revoke the licence within 24 hours. Swift removal in dangerous situations Pre-amendments: Many of the provisions in the bill lacked measures to ensure that guns were returned immediately in situations of danger. The problem: We expressed concerns that as soon as the gun owner knows that someone is coming for his guns, he might hide them or commit irreparable violence against his partner or ex- partner or another family member. Acting fast is imperative.

Amendments: Sections 36, 37 and 41 of the bill (sections 70, 72 and 89 of the Firearms Act) were amended to include a timeline of 24 hours • for a chief firearms officer to revoke a licence in situations of suspected domestic violence or stalking; • for a gun owner to deliver their firearms to a peace officer when their licence is revoked; • for courts who make a protection order to alert the chief firearms officer. Eligibility for a licence Pre-amendments: Bill C-21 would have prevented individuals from holding a licence “if they are or were subject to a protection order”.

For context, the Firearms Act, s. 5(2), currently includes protection orders as a factor in determining a person’s eligibility, but only if the chief firearms officer considers that the individual “presently poses a threat or risk to the safety and security of any person”. The problem: NAWL agrees that an individual who is subject to a protection order should not hold a firearms licence. However, we expressed concerns about a lifetime prohibition for anyone who has been subject to a protection order.

We fear ed that, as an adverse consequence of this provision, violent men would have started objecting to applications for a protection order (which are currently often gran ted with consent). An application for a protection order that is contested represents more delays, struggle and revictimization for the victim of intimate partner violence. Moreover, we were concerned that judges would become more hesitant to grant these p rotection orders, and we also ha d concerns about reciprocal protection orders which are often imposed on women who are victims of domestic violence.

Amendments: We recommended that the ineligibility of having a licence should be limited to people who are currently subject to a protection order. To support the application of this provision,

The National Association of Women & the Law 1404 Scott Street, Ottawa, Ontario, K1Y 2N2 www.nawl.ca | info@nawl.ca we recommend establishing a national protection orders’ registry, as the relevant provisions would become particularly difficult to enforce if someone moved to another province. We also recommended that having committed a violent offence against an intimate partner or family member should also render a person ineligible to have a licence under

section 6.1, and not just be considered as a factor under

section 5(2) of the Firearms Act. The SECU committee made both changes in

section 16 of the bill (section 6.1 of the Firearms Act): Protection orders 6.1 Subject to

section 70.3 and the regulations, an individual is not eligible to hold a licence if they are subject to a protection order or have been convicted of an offence in the commission of which violence was used, threatened or attempted against their intimate partner or any member of their family. The SECU committee also followed our recommendation to include potential safety threats rather than only certain safety threats when considering whether an individual is eligible to hold a licence: 15.4 Paragraph 5(2)(

d) of the Act is replaced by the following: (

d) is or was previously prohibited by an order — made in the interests of the safety and security of any person — from communicating with an identified person or from being at a specified place or within a specified distance of that place, and poses or could pose a threat or risk to the safety and security of any person; Definition of domestic violence Pre-amendments: the bill did not define domestic violence.

The problem: We feared that without a definition of domestic violence, chief firearm officers would adopt a restrictive definition that only considers direct and injury-provoking physical assault as domestic violence. Yet other forms of intimate partner violence – including threats against a third-party, sexual control, violence against a companion animal, threats of self -harm to induce compliance, surveillance, and many others – are also risk factors and must also lead to licence revocation. Amendments: Domestic violence is now defined in

section 36 of the bill (section 70.2 of the Firearms Act). Definition of “protection orders” Pre-amendments: Bill C -21 indicated that “protection orders” could be defined in the accompanying regulations.

7 The problem: “Protection orders” can be given different names and take different forms. We emphasized the need for consultations on how to define them in the regulations. We also emphasized that the regulations should come into force at the same time as Bill C-21. Amendments: Protection orders are now defined in

section 15 of the bill (section 2(1) of the Firearms Act). Their definition can be complemented by accompanying regulations. Recommendation not adopted: Judicial involvement for people who have lost their licence because of domestic violence The current situation: A person who has lost their licence because of a determination that they engaged in domestic violence, because of an ex parte application or because of a protection order could later reapply to get a licence.

The problem and remaining issue: A violent person could reapply for a licence sho rtly after losing it and retaliate against their partner or ex -partner. For example, a person could become ineligible to hold a licence for a month due to a 30 -day protection order, and apply for a new licence on the 31st day. No amendment: We suggested that anyone who lost their licence by reason of domestic or family violence should have to apply to a provincial judge to get a new licence.

Document details

Collection	Senate Committees
Citation	SECD / Brief / 2023-10-10_secd_c21_brief_nawl_e
Type	committee
Volume / chapter	441 / Brief / 2023-10-10_secd_c21_brief_nawl_e
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	COMM_SEN
Identifier	71e623caece09aa9dd239746d436ec0f9fb57ffa

Source file is stored in the law ingest library (pdf).