A few days ago, I spent time talking with Cindy Cowan, the Executive Director of a shelter for abused women called the Interim Place.

The Interim Place has been in operation for twenty-seven years, providing shelter, support, counseling and advocacy for abused women and their children; they are committed to a philosophy of feminism, anti-racism and anti-oppression. 

Cindy has been working with victims of domestic violence for over twenty years, and has been with the Interim Place for three.  When I asked her if she thought the money put towards implementation of Canada’s Firearms Act would have been better spent on social services for abused women, as many opposed to the Act have argued, her answer was no. 

Spending money on ‘patching women up’ is not the solution to ending domestic violence, according to Cowan.  While providing funding for shelters and other resources to help women who have been domestically abused is a necessity, developing and passing legislative policies (such as the Firearms Act) to prevent abuse from ever taking place works to eliminate that necessity. 

Violence against women is a very serious gender-based human rights violation, and obstructs equality between men and women.  Thus, investing money into the implementation of policies like the Firearms Act is vitally important in aiding victims of abuse, and combating a serious women’s rights issue.  Cindy spoke about this during our interview, and the following video includes a small portion of what she said.   

In closing, I need to address the claim made by pro gun advocates that I, and advocates like me, have been trying to win battles through emotional appeal.  I disagree with this statement as making the assertion, for example, that women are statistically more likely to be the victims of domestic violence is not emotionally, but rather factually, fueled.  I must say, however, that after spending nearly two hours with Cindy, it is hard not to bring emotion into the debate of why gun control is needed to help thwart abuse.   

Cindy was kind enough to show me around the shelter during my visit, pointing things out like the intake office for women seeking refuge at the Interim Place, and the playroom for kids.  I also got to see the room where donations are kept; there were a lot of used clothing and everyday household items, toiletries, and toys. 

When I saw the mismatched sheets, dishes and twenty year old coats that are provided to women when they leave the Interim Place, it made me understand more clearly why many women are scared to leave abusive relationships. 

Women who find the courage to leave volatile situations are forced to abandon their lives and their belongings, and are confined for months to dorm room-like living conditions in order to keep themselves and their children safe. 

When they do take the step to begin a new life, they must often do so with someone else’s used sheets and outgrown clothes.   How is this fair?  How is it, I wonder, that there are individuals that consider their privilege of owning a firearm more worthy than the right to safety and protection, afforded to all Canadian citizens by their government?

In Canada, 85% of female homicide victims are murdered by their partners and in Ontario, possession or access to firearms is the fifth leading risk factor for femicide.  These reasons are just two among many that led Wendy Cukier to work for stronger gun control in Canada. 

For those of you who do not know who Wendy Cukier is, you must not be from Canada.  Ms. Cukier, in addition to being a Professor at Ryerson University in Toronto, is a co-founder and the current President of the Coalition for Gun Control (CGC).  

The Coalition for Gun Control is an alliance of more than 300 major policing, public safety and violence prevention organizations including the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, Canadian Public Health Association, and YWCA of Canada.  It is also a founding member of IANSA.

The Coalition was founded in the wake of the Montreal Massacre.  In 1989, a twenty-five year old named Marc Lépine entered a classroom at the École Polytechnique in Montreal, armed with a legally obtained semi-automatic rifle. 

 Lépine moved all of the women to one side of the classroom and shot them, declaring that he hated women and that he was ‘fighting feminism’.  He then roamed the corridors, entered another classroom and the cafeteria, specifically targeted women, and shot them.  In total, fourteen women were killed and ten were injured. 

The mission of the Coalition is to reduce gun violence, injury, and crime.  As the organization’s President, Cukier has for years been one of Canada’s leading voices on the necessity of gun control.  Working together with the police, health care agencies, women’s groups, and victims, CGC and Cukier have helped to lead the efforts to defend Canada’s Firearms Act. 

coalition for gun control

When Ms. Cukier took time to sit down with me last week for an interview, one question I posed relates to the interrelatedness of licensing and the registry.  I explained that many opponents of the registry claim it to be unnecessary, and asked how she would explain that the two are indeed interconnected.

In response, Ms. Cukier asserted that as Canada’s Supreme Court concluded in their 2000 opinion regarding the Act’s constitutionality, it would be impossible to ensure that licensed individuals do not give their guns to others not holding a license without the registry.  The registration of firearms helps to enforce the licensing provisions of the Act.  

To explain this, Ms. Cukier provided the example that if an individual has a license and purchases firearms without a registration requirement, there is no way to hold them accountable for those firearms or to prevent them from lending or giving them to an unlicensed person. In other words, registration results in accountability.

In addition, if a prohibition order is placed on someone and their firearms license is taken away, without the registry, the police have no way to know what firearms they should be seizing.

Lastly, Ms. Cukier explained that if guns are stolen after being improperly stored, owners are unlikely to report the theft as required by law. If guns are registered, in effect attaching the name of the gun owners to the firearm, owners are more likely to behave responsibly. Registration is an essential component in preventing the diversion of legal guns to illegal markets.

Clearly, the licensing and registry provisions included in the Firearms Act are interrelated, and licensing on its own cannot do what licensing and the registry can together.  As Canada’s Supreme Court pointed out in their 2000 opinion on the constitutionality of the Act, the registry helps police officers to take preventative measures, and also aides in holding people who have misused firearms or sold them illegally responsible for their actions.

In closing, I would like to point out that since December 1^st, 1998 (when the Firearms Act was first implemented) the notification line, which allows concerned spouses or individuals to report their objections about the acquisition of a firearm by someone they know, has received over 22,000 calls. 

Additionally, and in part due to Canada’s Firearms Act, there has been a 67% decrease of female homicides by firearms; while the rate of female homicides without firearms has only decreased by 10%.   Canada’s gun control law has been identified as a best practice globally in the reduction of armed violence against women.

This week I was lucky enough to meet and talk with Detective Rick Hawes of the Peel Regional Police in Ontario.  Detective Hawes has been a police officer since 1978 and for the last four and a half years, has been the Coordinator for the Family Violence Unit.

As part of his position, Detective Hawes holds multi-day classroom seminars for officers on how to properly handle domestic dispute calls, as they are much different from other situations to which officers respond. 

Talking with Detective Hawes solidified for me many of the things I have learned and heard during my weeks in Canada.  For example, knowledge of a firearm in the home makes it more difficult for a victim of domestic abuse to seek help and leave their abuser, as firearms act as tools of intimidation and work to induce fear.  In fact, on the question form victims are asked to complete when officers respond to a domestic call, six out of the twenty-eight questions are related to firearms and licensure.

In addition, exiting an abusive relationship is not as simple as just making the decision to leave and leaving.  Often times, there are elements involved in abusive relationships that prevent victims from seeking help, such as children, housing, or financial dependency. 

When I asked Detective Hawes about the registry included in Canada’s Firearms Act, he asserted that it is helpful in eliminating the guessing game of whether or not households to which officers respond have firearms. 

Although cautious officers responding to calls never assume that a home is free of firearms even if the registry has nothing on record (especially with the rise of unregistered firearms by once legal owners), Detective Hawes views the registry as a very useful safety tool for both officers and victims.  The only substantial argument Detective Hawes has heard against the Firearms Act relates to cost and according to him, it is hard to put a price on public safety.

Detective Hawes also views the Firearms Act as an aide to the Justice of Peace throughout the court process against perpetrators of domestic abuse.  During the bail hearing, if it is revealed through the registry that more firearms are registered to the perpetrator than officers were able to seize, the perpetrator will be held until they are all accounted for.  

Additionally, during the court process, the firearms license of a perpetrator is seized and put on review, prohibiting the individual from owning or acquiring any type of firearm.  Clearly, these measures act to safeguard victims from further violence through the use of a firearm.

I stated above that I was lucky enough to spend time talking with Detective Hawes; this is because during my time in Canada, I have not met anyone more dedicated to tackling the issue of family violence.  Not only does Detective Hawes work with officers to help them understand the complexities of domestic abuse, but he also works with the community to help prevent abuse from ever taking place, and prioritizes victim safety.  I am very grateful to the time Detective Hawes was willing to spend with me, and find his commitment to prevent and end domestic abuse admirable.   

Dr. Barbara Kane has been a psychiatrist in Prince George, British Columbia for nineteen years.  She is one of only eight mental health professionals in town, which is home to 75,000 residents.  In an earlier entry, I featured a letter by Dr. Kane that was published in the Guelph Mercury newspaper.  This week, she was kind enough to sit down with me to share her views on Canada’s Firearms Act and the registry requirements contained within it. 

Dr. Kane became interested in firearms legislation prior to the passage and implementation of Canada’s Firearms Act, when she experienced firsthand just how difficult it was to remove firearms from the hands of individuals either dangerous to themselves or to others. 

During our interview, Dr. Kane stated that often times in the field of mental health, situations escalate swiftly, and quick actions are necessary in order to control the circumstances.  Thus, in a 1993 article published by the Canadian Medical Association Journal, Kane made the argument that physicians should have more of a voice in whether or not their patients are stable enough to own firearms. 

Dr. Kane made this argument because she found that prior to the registry, when she contacted law enforcement officials with concerns about the safety of one of her patients (or that of their friends and family as a result of the patient), they were unsure of what actions to take and had no way of telling whether the person of concern owned any firearms.

Since the implementation of the registry, however, when a concerned physician contacts law enforcement, they can easily determine whether an unstable individual has a firearm registered to them, and can act quickly to take it away, if necessary.  In Dr. Kane’s opinion, the registry has been very useful in aiding mental health professionals and the police in removing firearms from the hands of dangerous individuals.    

Of course critics of the registry will point out that it only contains records of legally registered firearms and not those that may have been obtained illegally.  This is true; however, working to save as many lives as possible is better than working to save none at all. 

In addition, the registry is important in helping law enforcement trace the origins of firearms that may have been acquired illegally, according to Dr. Kane.  During our interview, she spoke of a patient who shot himself using an illegally acquired firearm.  After shooting himself, the patient decided he did not want to die, but was unable to be saved.  This incident occurred before the registry was in place.  As a result, the gun could not be traced.  With the registry, law enforcement would have been more easily able to trace the origins of the firearm.  Without it, however, and lacking information from the victim, they were unable to determine from whom he had acquired it.  With the registry, more accountability exists.

Dr. Kane does think that more frequent screenings should be required of firearms users.  This is because mental illness can surface at many different stages of life, and Dr. Kane believes that someone perfectly stable at the time they receive their firearms license may not be mentally stable three, four, or five years later.  With more frequent screenings, the registry would not have to be utilized as often in order to remove firearms from the possession of dangerous individuals, as the licensing process would work to do it instead. 

 My interview with Dr. Kane provided me with a new perspective on the importance of the registry contained in Canada’s Firearms Act.  Not only has it worked to harmonize gun control and domestic violence laws in the country, but it has also helped mental health professionals, working in conjunction with law enforcement, to save lives and prevent tragedy.    

Unfortunately, stories of the registry successfully saving lives never make headline news, and therefore the gun lobby continues to claim that it is a waste.  I wonder if they would continue to call it useless if it were to save the life of one of their children, spouses, or friends.  I think I can pretty well imagine the answer to my own question, as I have been told many times that saving one life is just not worth the money that the Canadian government has invested. 

On June 30^th, I wrote an email to Garry Breitkreuz, who has to date been the most vocal Member of Parliament to oppose the long-gun registry provision contained in Canada’s Firearms Act.  Mr. Breitkreuz has repeatedly introduced legislation to scrap the registry, and I wanted to hear from him directly and also share his opinion on my blog.

Large Portrait Photo

Garry Breitkreuz, Member of Parliament

I understand that to some I am just a grad student working with the Advocacy Project ‘to change the world’, but I thought Breitkreuz might recognize the importance of healthy debate and take a few minutes out of his busy schedule to talk with me, or at least to return my email.  What was I thinking?  I never heard back.

On July 14^th, I followed up.  This time I included a link to my blog, so that he would see that many of his supporters have been leaving comments in support of him, and against the registry.  Of course this time, his office replied.  It was a polite reply, albeit generic.  Not once in the email I received was it mentioned that I had requested a brief interview.

Instead, to help me in my “quest to determine the legitimacy of the firearms registry,” one of Mr. Breitkreuz’s assistants invited me to read an essay that clearly states his position.  I am already aware of his position.  During the two weeks I patiently waited for a reply, I had already read the article, more than once.  I wanted to talk to him.

I was also kindly directed towards Mr. Breitkreuz’s website, in order to take a historical peek at his involvement in firearms issues.  In addition, I was provided the link to a publication that contains comments from frontline police officers on their feelings towards the registry.  I have already seen these things. 

I can take a hint.  I know what a response like this means.  His assistant did his job well by successfully deflecting my request for an interview.  Having to talk to someone who disagrees with him would have been an inconvenience for Mr. Breitkreuz.; pointing me towards websites and suggesting others that I may want to contact was a much easier route to take.

I must say that I am disappointed in the response I received, as I think that individuals who strongly disagree with one another are more easily able to find common ground when face to face (or in this case, phone to phone) dialogue takes place.  Additionally, Mr. Breitkreuz spent an impressive number of years teaching before entering politics, which led me to believe that he might understand the importance of engaging students. 

I sent the same request and follow-up email to Member of Parliament Candice Hoeppner.  Ms. Hoeppner has essentially taken over the fight for Mr.  Breitkreuz through her introduction this session of a bill that would eliminate the registry. Maybe I shouldn’t be so hard on Mr. Breitkreuz.  At least his office responded to my request, something Hoeppner’s office has yet to do.

I have many people that are opposed to the registry, included in Canada’s Firearms Act, telling me that I’m incorrect in the assertions I’ve made about it.  I keep being told that I’m confusing my facts.  In reality, those telling me I’m confused may want to reassess their own comprehension of the Firearms Act, and specifically the correlation between the licensing system and the registry.

I’ve studied the Canadian Firearms Act in depth, and understand that screening is done when an individual applies for a license to acquire a firearm.  I also understand that an individual has to register each new firearm they acquire. 

When someone with a license registers their newly acquired firearm, it’s entered into the registry database, making it easier for police to track.  The police use the registry before responding to calls in order to determine how many firearms, if any, are in the home they’re responding to.  This offers police officers on the frontline an added layer of protection. 

In addition, as it is the law to register newly acquired firearms, if concerns arise through the screening process or as a result of individuals like Dr. Kane reporting their worries to the police, an investigation may be triggered, registration may be denied, and firearms may be confiscated. 

By eliminating the long-gun registry, the registry system would be incomplete, and thus, ineffective.  In addition, the added layer of protection provided to police officers would disappear, as would the protection provided to women and children. 

I have not confused the two; the registry and licensing systems are interrelated.

If you have read any of my recent blogs, you understand just how controversial Canada’s Firearms Act is, specifically the provision requiring that all unrestricted firearms be registered.  This is why, when I sat down with Barb MacQuarrie, Community Director of the Centre for Research and Education on Violence against Women & Children at the University of Western Ontario, I asked her to address those criticisms that are heard most often from opponents of the registry. 

At the Centre, Ms. MacQuarrie promotes collaboration between community-based professionals, advocates, and the academic world, pursuing research questions that help to better understand and prevent abuse against women and children.  She is an advocate for survivors of violence through her work at the Centre, as well as through her management of Ontario’s provincial Neighbours, Friends and Families public education campaign, which she helped to establish. Ms. MacQuarrie has spent many years in the field, working with individuals directly affected by violence, and alongside those whose mission it is to end and prevent it.  As a result, she gives a voice to victims, with the intention of determining how best to prevent and respond to violence against women and children.   

I had a chance to sit down with Maribel Gonzales, my counterpart at Project Ploughshares, to ask her about her work in small arms and peacebuilding.  In the interview, Maribel talks about the correlation between small arms and domestic violence and explains how Canada’s Firearms Act has effectively harmonized gun control and domestic violence laws in the country.  In addition, she talks about attempts to eliminate the registration of unrestricted rifles and shotguns, which would dismantle these harmonized laws.

Last week I wrote an entry entitled “The Conservative Attempt to Eliminate the Gun Registry.” In that entry, I asserted that the mandatory registration of non-restricted firearms under Canada’s Firearms Act should not be eliminated, as it has helped to protect the lives of many women throughout Canada.  Since writing that entry, I have received over fifty comments, and have posted many that are respectful and polite.  However, while engaging in debate with those whose opinion varies from mine is healthy, helpful, and appreciated, I made the decision to delete comments that are disrespectful and derogatory to me or to those who have written in defense of the registry.  Calling someone an idiot, Hitler, uneducated, childish, or a liberal self-righteous fascist is not the type of dialogue I like to engage in, and because of this I refuse to post such comments, no matter how many times the same individual submits a comment.

While domestic homicides occur with weapons besides firearms, such as knives or fists, guns are more deadly, and increase the risk of death by twelve times.  The risk of physical harm, threats, and intimidation to women and children increases when a gun is present in the home.  In Canada, one in three women killed by their husbands is shot, making it hard to imagine what that statistic would be without the registry in place.

The registry was passed into law in 1995, and contains measures targeted at keeping guns from those who are at risk to commit domestic violence.  These measures include screening risk factors for suicide and domestic violence, background checks, and notifying current and previous spouses of an individual’s intent to acquire a firearms license.

Between 1997 and 2006, Canada has seen the rate of firearm-related spousal homicide decrease by nearly fifty percent, according to the Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics.  In addition, according to the same source, since 2008 police have seized 8,261 guns from owners who were either violent or had threatened violence; seventy-four percent of these guns were non-restricted firearms.

In Canada, everyone has the fundamental right to own a gun.  At the same time, the government has the fundamental responsibility of keeping its citizens safe.  Recognizing that the protective benefits outweighed the costs, the Canadian government implemented the registry, and its constitutionality was upheld by the Supreme Court of Canada in 2000.  Thus, while law-abiding gun owners may frown upon it as a burden and a waste of money, the Supreme Court, Parliament, and most importantly, women who have escaped death as a result of the registry, view it as a necessity and, in many instances, a lifesaver.  It has been close to fifteen years since its implementation; if the registry were as ineffective as those opposed to it claim it to be, enough support in Parliament would have by now been garnered to scrap the measure.

The Canadian Parliament adjourned on Friday until September 14th.  This means, until session resumes at least, that Canada’s Firearms Act will remain as it’s currently written, and that the gun registry will continue to be used by police as a preventative measure in protecting women and children from domestic violence.  During the final days of session, it was unclear whether an election might be called; under Canada’s Parliamentary system, a no confidence vote against a fiscal bill introduced by the minority party in charge, the Conservatives, would result in an election and all of the bills currently under consideration would in effect die.  

Confused by Canada’s political system?  Me too, but what I do know is that an election was averted, thereby maintaining the ability by Parliament to discuss those bills introduced to eliminate the gun registry (C-391 and S-5) come September.  C-301, another bill that had been introduced during session, was dropped from the House of Common’s calendar because on two separate occasions the author of the bill, MP Garry Breitkreuz, was a no show for scheduled floor debates.  C-301 was controversial even to some Conservatives, as it included a laundry list of changes to the Firearm’s Act, not just an elimination of the registry.  As a result, Breitkreuz refused to debate the bill and successfully eliminated any future possibility of discussion.  C-391, authored by MP Candice Hoeppner, was introduced as an alternative to Breitkreuz’s bill, but session ended before it could make its way to the floor for debate.  Hoeppner, following Friday’s summer adjournment, issued a press release claiming that opposition party members deliberately tried preventing debate and a vote on the bill.  Perhaps those who Hoeppner claims attempted to kill the bill in committee had read any of the most recent Canadian newspaper articles on the subject.  The following are two of the most recent:

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/handguns+collected+city+since+fall/1640924/story.html

 http://telegraphjournal.canadaeast.com/search/article/703339

 It seems that although statistics illustrating the registry’s effectiveness are plentiful, with the help of MP Candice Hoeppner, discussion regarding the gun registry will continue into the summer, with the Conservatives, sportsmen, and the gun lobby united, fighting to eliminate the registry on account of what they claim to be a violation of their freedoms and a burden on tax payers.  As one of only four countries with harmonized gun control and domestic violence laws, Hoeppner and the Conservatives should focus on illustrating the importance of protecting women and children through gun registries rather then on eliminating Canada’s, which does nothing to prevent law-abiding citizens from owning firearms.