[Updated 2020-02-18] Added info documenting Basil Borutski’s history of domestic violence dating back to 1985.
Canada doesn’t need a new “red flag law.”
If Minister Bill Blair truly wants to improve public safety, he must rewrite legislation surrounding Firearm Prohibition Orders so violent offenders are tracked and routinely checked for compliance.
If he can’t grasp the need for this, direct his attention to the September 22, 2015 murders of Carol Culleton, Anastasia Kuzyk and Nathalie Warmerdam.
Culleton, Kuzyk and Warmerdam were murdered by Basil Borutski, a man with
- a lifelong history of domestic violence dating back to 1985
- a lifetime Firearm Prohibition Order
- a revoked firearm Possession and Acquisition Licence in his wallet
- the shotgun he used to murder two of these three women in his possession
Too Many Unanswered Questions
How did Basil Borutski pass the mandated RCMP background check when he applied for a Possession and Acquisition Licence (PAL)?
How is it possible for the Canadian Firearm Centre to issue Borutski a PAL in light of his long history of domestic violence?
How is it possible for Borutski to retain possession of a shotgun, not to mention a firearm licence, after a judge slapped him with a lifetime Firearm Prohibition Order?
Borutski’s lengthy history of violence and the increasing violence of the attacks on his domestic partners should have raised every red flag in the system.
Somehow, they didn’t.
How is any of this possible?
Nobody wants to fix the system.
Change the Terms of Firearm Prohibition Orders
It is the senseless murders of Carol Culleton, Anastasia Kuzyk and Nathalie Warmerdam, three examples of the utter and total failure of the Firearm Prohibition Order system, that drives my demand for Minister Bill Blair and the Trudeau government to fix this fatally-flawed program.
This is not a Liberal or Conservative issue.
This is a Government of Canada issue.
Governments of both political stripes failed these three women.
Governments of both political stripes continue to fail Canadians from lifelong domestic abusers and murderers like Basil Borutski.
Canada’s Firearm Prohibition Order system is broken
Once a Firearm Prohibition Order is handed down by a judge, the police and the courts seemingly ignore these violent offenders. They cover their ears and eyes, opting to live in the fantasy world where a piece of paper will stop violent criminals from committing more violent acts.
Court records show Basil Borutski’s history of domestic violence dates back to 1985, the first time he was charged with domestic assault. [see paras 10, 13, 15 and 27]
The Ottawa Sun reported Boris Borutski was first issued a Possession and Acquisition Licence on July 9, 2007.
The Canadian Firearms Program renewed Borutski’s licence in July 2012.
His PAL was revoked six months later on December 20, 2012, after a court-ordered 10-year Firearm Prohibition Order.
No police agency took responsibility to remove the revoked firearms licence from Borutski’s possession.
A lifetime Firearm Prohibition Order placed on Boris Borutski in 2014 after a second conviction for domestic violence. That conviction stemmed from his abuse of Anastasia Kuzyk.
Still, despite a lifetime weapons prohibition, nobody bothered to remove Borutski’s twice-revoked Possession and Acquisition Licence.
How is this possible?
I can’t answer how it happened, but I can tell you why it happened.
- There is no legal requirement for police to track individuals with Firearm Prohibition Orders registered against them or routinely check them to ensure compliance.
- There is no legal requirement for individuals with Firearm Prohibition Orders to notify police when they move to a new residence. Police have no idea where these people are.
- No police agency tracks individuals with Firearm Prohibition Orders registered against them.
This is why I demand the Government of Canada hold violent offenders with Firearm Prohibition Orders to the same standard as RCMP-vetted Possession and Acquisition Licence (PAL) holders.
PAL holders:
- Must notify the Canadian Firearms Program of their change of address within 30 days or face up to 2 years in prison.
- Must request and receive permission (an Authorization to Transport) from the Canadian Firearms Program to move their private property (firearms) from their old address to their new address.
- Are screened daily by the RCMP Canadian Firearms Centre’s Continuous Eligibility Screening Program.
People with a history of violent offences are a proven danger to public safety, yet these are the people our government refuses to track.
This is insane.
Please write Public Safety Minister Bill Blair and demand he reform Canada’s Firearm Prohibition Order so violent offenders are subject to, at a minimum, the same level of scrutiny we apply to licenced gun owners.
Contact the Minister of Public Safety
The Minister of Public Safety Canada can be contacted via Electronic correspondence, by regular post or by sending an email to the Honourable Bill Blair.
Canada Post (no postage required)
Minister of Public Safety
House of Commons
Ottawa, Canada K1A 0A6
I’d love to know your views. Please share your thoughts in the comments section below.
Author
-
Christopher di ArmaniChristopher di Armani is a freedom-loving Amazon bestselling author and current events commentator from Lytton, BC, Canada, who strives to awaken the passion for liberty inside every human being.
Christopher, the timeline does not appear to support your outrage. From the history it would appear that the first conviction for domestic violence occurred in 2012 with the second occurring in 2014. No other domestic violence charges or convictions are reported. If this is true, then it can hardly be classified as a lifelong history (which is not to diminish in any way the importance of combatting domestic violence). This timeline also means that the original issuing (2007) and subsequent renewal (2012) of the PAL occurred before the 10 year prohibition order. If he wasn’t on anyone’s radar then there would have been no reason to deny the application. Furthermore, you recently railed against the nature of the questions used during interviews of references: perhaps if those questions had been used during the initial application he might have been denied the licence in 2007. At the very least, it is hard to justify the dissonance between complaining about overly aggressive screening and complaining that it is not aggressive enough.
Having said that, I do agree that a court-ordered prohibition should be checked against the eligibility screening program to ensure that the licence is properly revoked. It would also help if the Courts asked if there was a licence at the time of issuing a prohibition with automatic surrender of said licence in a similar manner to what occurs with a driver’s licence during an impaired driving/over 80 case. Firearm prohibitions would appear during a CPIC check so police dealing with a situation would have that information at hand.
Basil Borutski’s first conviction for domestic abuse was in 2012, yes, but his history of domestic abuse, including multiple arrests and charges, predates it by decades. He was first charged for beating his wife in 1985 and again in 1994. I’ve updated the article with that information and links to the court decision where this information is found.
My apologies for the apparent dissonance. This information should have been included in the final draft, but wasn’t.
There would be no need to ‘track’ violent offenders if they were segregated from society, as they should be.
I have a theory! If we consider that when crime escalates to levels that the law abiding public deem to high, the common phrase, “The government should do something, they need to make or update the law”. Further consideration shows there is a symbiotic relationship between government and criminals. Without the gangs, the drugs, and lowlife’s in general, we would only need a third of the government we currently have. Governments love to grow and increase their power. By allowing a certain amount of crime to thrive, it keeps the lawful citizenry a little fearful, and more easily controlled. Then when things are running smoothly, keep the TV, beer and hockey front and center to pacify us! Then consider from their point of view, if they wanted to pile on a new tax, say to pay off the national debt, or how about additional “Carbon Taxes”….. if things really get out of hand and the citizenry push back, we could have a situation like Venezuela, or France. If things spiraled down to a civil war, unlikely yes, but not impossible,Then who will law abiding firearms owners be giving their spare firearms and ammo to? Their neighbors of course. So from a government’s point of view, we the law abiding firearms owners are the threat, not criminals. That is why we are tracked and not the criminals. Just my pet theory! I do live within the law, but they don’t make it easy for any of us. We are also told we get the government we deserve, but wow, we didn’t deserve the one we now have.