Honourable senators, I rise today in support of the purpose and general terms of Bill C-71 on firearms. This bill is on the right track.

Like many women and many Quebecers, I was deeply disappointed when the previous federal government watered down gun control laws. Let’s be clear: in Canada, gun ownership is not a right, it is a privilege. The more firearms there are in society, the more accidents there are and the more gun-related crimes are committed and that includes injuries and murders in cases of domestic violence, spousal violence, and suicide.

In recent years I have worked on issues related to violence against women and I know that there are important connections to make. The presence of a firearm in a home is one of the key factors, if not the main factor of risk for predicting mortality in each case of spousal violence.

Between 1989 and 2005, the number of women killed by guns dropped from 74 to 32 across the country. The interesting thing to note is the correlation between this sharp drop and the coming into force of stricter gun laws in 1991 and 1995. Although there were certainly many factors at play, it is worthwhile to note that the number of gun murders has dropped much more dramatically than the number of knife crimes, for example.

The extent of this phenomenon varies from one province to the next. In Quebec, 3 per cent of domestic violence cases involve firearms. This figure is higher in Manitoba, at 13 per cent, according to a 2009 study. Many know that gender plays a role in this type of violence. Gun owners are overwhelmingly men, not women.

Statistics Canada calculated that, in 2016, nearly 600 Canadian women were the victims of spousal violence or intimate partner violence committed with a firearm compared to 100 men. In Ontario, from 2002 to 2015, one-quarter of spousal murders were committed with a firearm. Women are disproportionately affected by these crimes. In Quebec, one-third of spousal murder victims were women.

What is more, when it comes to this serious issue, it is much too easy to pit those in rural areas against the urban elite, as some people do. It is not just law-abiding hunters and firearms enthusiasts who live in rural areas. Let us not forget their spouses and families. Rifles and shotguns are the weapons that are most often recovered from crime scenes. They are the most commonly used weapons in cases of domestic violence, suicide and the murder of police officers, particularly in rural regions.

It is also too easy to limit this gun violence to street gangs in the city, when in fact women in rural areas are more at risk because they are more isolated.

Here are some shocking examples, including a murder that happened last spring in Calgary. Nadia El-Dib, a 22-year-old woman who had her entire life ahead of her, was brutally murdered. She was stabbed 40 times and shot twice by her ex-boyfriend, who had purchased a semi-automatic rifle legally two weeks before the attack. According to the victim’s sister, the young man believed he had the right to murder his ex-girlfriend because she wanted to take ownership of her life and said no to a man who wanted to control her. This tragedy clearly shows the instruments at work in this kind of violence: power and the use of violence to control a woman’s body, even if it means killing her.

In 2016, a 26-year-old Ontario woman was shot by her ex-boyfriend. Her assailant managed to get a licence to possess and acquire firearms despite having a criminal record and a history of mental health problems.

In the summer of 2015, in Renfrew County in rural Ontario, a man killed three of his former spouses with a sawed-off shotgun. He had a long history of domestic violence.

There was another incident in 2015, this one in Manitoba, that attracted a lot of attention. Kevin Runke shot and killed his ex-wife, Camille, at her workplace even though he was under a protection order. His ex-wife had told the authorities that he had a weapon and that she was living in fear.

Bill C-71 has much to recommend it, but I would like to raise some issues for the committee to consider.

Perhaps the list of criteria officials use to issue firearms licences should be informed by a prevention approach to encourage more thorough checks. Denying an acquisition licence should be viewed not as punishment, but as a way to prevent crime. The officials who issue these licences have a very difficult job to do. They need the act and regulations to provide clear rules for how to do their work properly. For example, are written statements from respondents good enough, or should officials try to speak to them directly to confirm that they have no concerns about their significant other or spouse obtaining a firearms licence?

Here is something else to think about. Should police officers be given more discretion so that they can quickly consult the registries of commercial or private firearms vendors without first obtaining a warrant? That is what is provided for in Bill C-71. Time is often of the essence in investigations. When it comes to cases of domestic violence, it is crucial that police know how many guns are in the house.

I am sure that we will have the opportunity to consider these issues in committee, but it is obvious to me that Bill C-71 is welcome and needed. Of course, gun control is just one aspect of the strategies to prevent and reduce spousal and family violence. We all know that laws are not enough, but they are essential, since reducing the gender inequality that leads to violence requires radical changes in attitudes. This will take time, a lot of time. This is about saving lives, because every life counts. It is about preventing thousands of women from having to live in fear because there are weapons in their homes. Thank you.