On February 5, 2020, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau stood in the House of Commons and lied to Canadians.
Mr. Speaker, the police currently have the ability to remove firearms from someone who presents a threat to themselves or others, but they cannot suspend the licence and prevent that person from acquiring new firearms. That is what the red-flag law is all about.
At the very least, Mr. Trudeau’s staff should provide their boss accurate briefing notes. The truth is spelled out clearly in Section 70 of Canada’s Firearms Act, which deals with firearm licence revocation.
70 (1) A chief firearms officer may revoke a licence, an authorization to carry or an authorization to transport for any good and sufficient reason including, without limiting the generality of the foregoing,
(a) where the holder of the licence or authorization
(i) is no longer or never was eligible to hold the licence or authorization,
(ii) contravenes any condition attached to the licence or authorization, or
(iii) has been convicted or discharged under section 730 of the Criminal Code of an offence referred to in paragraph 5(2)(a); or
The law makes it clear a firearm licence may be revoked “for any good and sufficient reason.”
The Prime Minister’s ignorance of Canada’s firearm legislation and our firearm control framework is not unexpected, but it is disheartening.
The trouble is not with the current firearm licence revocation system but with its lack of use by police and judges and the willful ignorance of politicians like our Prime Minister.
Kudoes to Calgary Heritage MP Bob Benzen for attempting to get an honest answer out of the Prime Minister.
Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Prime Minister said that law enforcement officers could not seize gun licences. He is wrong. An RPAL or PAL is invalidated when it is seized by police for public safety and that person has no ability at law to possess or acquire any firearm. Will the Prime Minister now admit that Canada has long had legal options to seize firearms in public safety scenarios, and apologize for misleading the House yesterday?
He did not get it, nor did he receive an apology for misleading the House.
The Liberal government’s current push for so-called a red flag law stems from the Canadian Association of Emergency Physicians firearms policy paper (PDF), which states in part:
As EPs we must advocate for injury control. All firearm injuries and deaths are preventable, and we must advocate for a multifaceted approach in order to minimize this risk to our patients.
The Canadian Association of Emergency Physicians recommends the following measures:
- Continued support for the original provisions of Bill C-68 and the gun control law, and active opposition to any attempt at repealing the national firearms registry (including the long gun registry).
- Advocacy for the implementation by the government of a nationwide surveillance system for firearm-related injury and mortality.
- Expansion of programs focused on the prevention of suicide, intimate partner violence and gang-related violence.
- Support for legislation mandating that health care facilities report GSWs, but not knife injuries or other violent injuries.
- Continued support for research into firearm-related injury and death in order to guide further public policy development and future legislation.
Passed by the CAEP Board of Directors, October 2008
By this standard, a drug dealer or gang member who arrives at the E.R. with a knife or other violent wound wouldn’t be reported, but the one with a gunshot wound would.
Their logic appears to be “bullet wounds are bad, but wounds caused by knives or other acts of violence are not.”
This is bizarre.
Why the focus on reporting gunshot wounds while ignoring other violent injuries? If the goal is to prevent all injuries, as they claim, why do they want only gunshot wounds reported?
What do you think?
Should the government pass a “red flag law” so doctors can sidestep current privacy restrictions to report gunshot wounds only?
Should the government pass a law so doctors can sidestep privacy restrictions for all violent injuries?
Please let me know your thoughts in the comments below.
robert halliday says
Very to the point Christopher. Thanks for investigating this. Wouldn’t it be nice if there were honesty among our Liberal governing party but I fear this has nothing to do with honesty and everything to do with politics.
Please keep up the good work of exposing these lies and giving a good explanation of the true situation under the law. I hope you are making these posts available to conservative politicians so they can at least have the chance to present the actual truth in Ottawa, whether or not anyone actually listens.
Dennis R Young says
Well said Christopher: A serious problem (one of many) with the Firearms Interest Police (FIP) database is that Parliamentarians have no idea if it’s effective or not. MPs and Senators are being kept in the dark. Below see the Liberal response to an Order Paper Question tabled in Parliament and an ATIP response from the RCMP.
LIBERAL RESPONSE TO Q-2322: Effectiveness of Firearms Interest Police (FIP) Database
EXCERPT #1: “There were a total of 3,547,424 FIP notifications generated in 2017. The CFP only reviews FIP notifications that are matched to a client of the CFP, and therefore does not track FIP notifications to individuals without a firearms licence.”
EXCERPT #2: “(d), (e), (t), (g) and (h): Given the time constraints, the RCMP is unable to provide the requested information without assessing each individual FIP notification and resulting CFO review and investigation. This assessment would take more time than is available for responding to this question.”
IMPORTANT EFFECTIVENESS EVIDENCE STILL NOT PROVDED TO PARLIAMENT
(d) What was the average time it took to complete the investigation of a Firearms Interest Police (FIP) event;
(e) How many FIP events that resulted in firearms being removed from possession of the licensed gun owner;
(f) How many FIP events that resulted in firearms being removed from possession of a person without a firearms license;
(g) What was the average time it took from reporting of the Firearms Interest Police (FIP) event to the firearms being removed from the possession of the licensed gun owner;
(h) What was the average time it took from reporting of the Firearms Interest Police (FIP) event to the firearms being removed from the possession of the person without a firearms license?
FIP DATABASE EFFECTIVENESS EVIDENCE IS NOT AVAILABLE BY ACCESS TO INFORMATION EITHER – RCMP response to Access to Information Act Request dated January 11, 2019 – Received January 18, 2019
Important statistics about firearms license holders who are ‘involved in an event involving violence or other offences’ are not tracked.
• No Statistics on the average time it took to initiate an investigation of a FIP event;
• No Statistics on the average time it took to complete the investigation of a FIP event;
• No Statistics on the number of FIP events that resulted in firearms being removed from possession of the licensed gun owner; and
• No Statistics on the average time it took from reporting of the FIP event to the firearms being removed from the possession of the licensed gun owner.
“If the goal is to prevent all injuries, why do they want only gunshot wounds reported?”
because they are lying sacks of $#!7 who need to be punished for their lies.
One must always remember that Anne McLellan LIED to get C-68 passed. RCMP JPR Murray had to admonish McLellan’s department for LYING about gun statistics. Further, she lied about confiscation provisions of C-68: See:
Further: Alan Rock who originally proposed the legislation for C-68 (written with help from Lloyd Axworthy) stated that confiscation WAS the purpose, and that “only the police and military should have guns.”
“Why would anyone object to filling out two little pieces of paper to make our society safe?” Alan Rock
“I came to Ottawa in November of last year with the firm belief that the only people in this country who should have guns are police officers and soldiers.”
“C-68 has little to do with gun control or crime control, but it is the first step necessary to begin the social re-engineering of Canada.”
-Liberal Senator Sharon Carstairs 1996
“Canada will be one of the first unarmed countries in the World.”
-former Liberal Foreign Affairs Minister Lloyd Axworthy 1998
“The debate is over”.
Dennis Pinney says
It is obvious that to mine the database for offences by valid holders of a PAL, vs offences by non-Pal holders, would reveal an answer that the anti-gun lobby and politicians does not want to see.
Gun crime in Canada is almost 100% committed with illegal guns, and by people that do not hold a PAL.
The answer is not to seize legal guns. By definition, seizing legal guns will not stop illegal gun problems. Rather, make it illegal to have an illegal gun, and illegal to use it for illegal purposes.
Wait! don’t we already have that?
Raise the penalties drastically, and then enforce those penalties, for crimes committed with a gun. Eliminate automatic parole and “good behaviour” sentence reductions for gun crime. Raise those stiff penalties for repeat offenders. Simple, right?
And by the way, eliminate laws that make paperwork errors into a felony crime. For example, if I forgot to renew my PAL. Send me a reminder, just like every other organization or company in the world.
Alas, I fear none of the above will occur, because our current politicians want talking points and hand wringing opportunities. But it would fix the problem.
GSWs are legally obliged to be reported to police in Ontario (https: //www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/05m09)
Knifes wounds/stabbings are not.
If police call and ask “Is John Smith there?” I can answer without breaking patient confidentiality. If I call to report a dangerous intoxicated person in my ER, I’d better do so anonymously from a payphone, or I might get sued!
Don’t apply logic to healthcare, your brain will cry!
Christopher di Armani says
Thanks for the info and insight, Kevin. Much appreciated.
IAN THOMSON says
Well there are already so called Red Flag laws withing the Criminal Code Of Canada. A Police Officer can without a warrant enter a home/dwelling and seize firearms where the officer believes that the person may be a threat to themselves or others. The aection used to be 117, but I’m sure that has changed as they’ve updated / modified the CCC.