Canada Gazette, Part I, Volume 159, Number 10: Regulations Amending the Firearms Licences Regulations

March 8, 2025

Statutory authority
Firearms Act

Sponsoring department
Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness

REGULATORY IMPACT ANALYSIS STATEMENT

(This statement is not part of the Regulations.)

Issues

Firearms violence is a complex issue affecting people in Canada in both urban and rural settings. While many firearms are securely stored and used legally for hunting or sports shooting activities, firearms violence and risks associated with firearms in situations of intimate partner and family violence continues to be a persistent problem. There were 1,083 victims of intimate partner violence (IPV)footnote 1 in Canada in 2023 where a firearm was present, accounting for 1.2% of all victims of intimate partner violence. More than four in five (84%) victims of IPV were women and girls.

Across Canada, protection orders are issued by courts and other competent authorities to protect a person’s safety and security. These orders can go by various names (e.g., restraining, intervention or protection order) and have varying lengths. When issued, these orders put restrictions on someone’s behaviour, such as preventing communication with an identified person or being in a specified place. These orders are legally binding, which means they have to be followed.

Firearms licence holders are expected to meet ongoing eligibility requirements to use and possess firearms. At present, if a court or other authorized competent authority were to issue a protection order against a person who is applying for a firearms licence or who is currently a licence holder, a Chief Firearms Officer (CFO) has discretion to either refuse to issue a firearms licence or to revoke a firearms licence.

Former Bill C-21, An Act to amend certain Acts and to make certain consequential amendments (firearms) [Bill C-21], which received Royal Assent on December 15, 2023, made a number of amendments to the Firearms Act to reduce risks to public safety and to better respond to instances of firearms-related violence, including IPV, family violence, domestic violence and gender-based violence.

Regulations are needed to define “protection order,” including defining what entities will be recognized as other competent authorities that issue protection orders and to provide factors for CFOs to consider when deciding whether or not to issue a possession and acquisition licence with conditions (conditional licence) to individuals subject to enhanced licence revocation and ineligibility measures for the purpose of sustenance hunting or trapping for themselves or their families.

Background

Licence Eligibility and Revocations

The Firearms Act provides CFOs with criteria that must be considered in determining eligibility to hold a firearms licence or in determining a person’s ongoing eligibility to hold a licence. These criteria include, among other things: whether the person has been treated for a mental illness associated with violence, has a history of violent behaviour, or has been convicted of certain Criminal Code offences.

The Firearms Act also gives CFOs discretion to determine an individual’s eligibility to obtain and hold a firearms licence. Applicants are screened to assess their eligibility to possess a firearms licence and a licence holder is subject to continuous eligibility screening over the term of the licence. If a licence holder is involved in an event that calls their eligibility for a licence into question, such as those involving violence or other offences such as criminal harassment, careless use of firearms, other firearm-related offences in Part III of the Criminal Code, it is reported in the Canadian Firearms Information System (CFIS) via a Firearms Interest Police (FIP) event record and sent to the relevant CFO for review. CFOs also receive information on other firearms-related concerns related to storage, transportation, and use which can be used to determine the eligibility of a licence holder.

In most cases, CFOs also have discretion to revoke a firearms licence for any sufficient and good reason.

There are situations when an individual becomes ineligible to hold a licence as a matter of law, such as when they become subject to a prohibition order. This means that the refusal to issue the licence or to revoke the licence is not a decision made by the CFO, but rather by operation of the law. Prohibition orders are orders made under the Criminal Code or any other Act of Parliament prohibiting a person from possessing any firearm, cross-bow, prohibited weapon, restricted weapon, prohibited device, firearm part, ammunition, prohibited ammunition or explosive substance, or all such things. These are issued by courts on a mandatory or discretionary basis and result in the revocation of a firearms licence and the removal of firearms.

Overall, in determining eligibility, CFOs prioritize public safety to reduce the risk of harm resulting from the misuse of firearms. In 2023, 920 licences were refused for various public safety reasons, of which 78 were due to domestic violence and 367 were due to a potential risk to others. Similarly, 3,127 licences were revoked, of which 206 were due to domestic violence and 689 were due to a potential risk to others.

Protection Orders

Protection orders are orders made by courts and other competent authorities to help protect individuals in situations where safety concerns exist, such as instances of IPV or where harassing or threatening conduct has occurred. In most jurisdictions across Canada, there are different types of orders available to help ensure a person’s safety and security if they face harm or potential harm from anyone, including a partner or family member (e.g. civil protection orders, restraining orders, prevention orders, no-contact orders, assistance orders or emergency intervention orders). In most cases, courts and other competent authorities can add conditions or restrictions on these orders that prevent a person from engaging in certain activities (e.g., communicating with an identified person, being in a specified place or engaging in family violence). These conditions can include prohibitions on possessing firearms or ordering the seizure of firearms by peace officers.

The total number of protection orders issued across Canada is not known. There is currently no obligation under the Firearms Act for courts or other competent authorities to report the issuance of protection orders to CFOs. In addition, provincial and territorial courts may choose to report the issuance of protection orders to CFOs with the exception of the province of Manitoba. In Manitoba, competent authorities under Manitoba’s Domestic Violence and Stalking Act are required to provide the CFO with a copy of the protection order when it has been granted. When reported, a CFO is obligated to consider this information when assessing eligibility of an individual to hold a licence under the Firearms Act. However, they are not required under the Firearms Act to refuse to issue a new licence or to revoke an existing licence.

Former Bill C-21

Former Bill C-21 amended the Firearms Act to introduce new measures to enhance the current firearms licence revocation and eligibility scheme. These new measures respond to calls to take stronger action against gun violence and to address the risks associated with firearms in at-risk situations, including those involving gender-based, intimate partner and family violence.

These amendments require CFOs to revoke an individual’s firearms licence when they have reasonable grounds to suspect that the individual has engaged in an act of domestic violence or stalking and result in mandatory licence revocation, as a matter of law, if an individual firearms licence holder becomes subject to a protection order. These amendments also enhanced ineligibility criteria rendering individuals ineligible to hold a firearms licence if they are the subject of 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 family member ineligible to hold a firearms licence. To mitigate adverse impacts on individuals subject to these enhanced licence revocation or ineligibility provisions and who require firearms to hunt or trap to sustain themselves or their families, legislative changes were made to authorize CFOs to issue, upon application, a licence with conditions in order to allow an individual to possess firearms solely for the purposes of sustenance hunting or trapping.

Complementary amendments in former Bill C-21 create new record-keeping requirements for CFOs when protection orders are issued, varied or revoked and a positive obligation for competent authorities, such as courts, to provide CFOs with information on protection orders made, varied or revoked within their jurisdiction.

Objective

The Government of Canada is committed to keeping communities and vulnerable populations, including women, Indigenous People and other at-risk groups safe from firearms violence.

The proposed Regulations Amending the Firearms Licences Regulations (the proposed Regulations) would support the operation and enhance implementation of amendments to the Firearms Act made through former Bill C-21. It is expected that prescribing which protection orders would result in the revocation or refusal of a firearms licence will reduce access to firearms to individuals who pose a danger to others and help improve the safety outcomes of those in at-risk situations, including in situations of intimate partner and family violence. Also, providing factors for consideration in the issuance of a conditional licence will strengthen the licence regime while providing a path for firearm access for those who may need it to hunt or trap to sustain themselves or their family.

Description

The proposed Regulations would include the following changes:

Defining “Protection Order”

The proposed Regulations would amend the Firearms Licences Regulations to set out a definition of “protection order” that would inform courts and other competent authorities about the kinds of order they are required to report to a CFO under the Firearms Act. Once information is received from these entities, the CFO would be required to issue a notification of refusal or revocation in accordance with the Firearms Act and its regulations. The information from the courts and other competent authorities would help CFOs to identify a person whose licence must be revoked as a result of the issuance of a protection order. This information would also ensure that a person is treated as ineligible for a licence for the duration of the protection order.

“Protection order” would be defined to capture any civil order made by a court or other competent authority in the interest of the safety or security of another person, including an order that prohibits the person from engaging in a non-exhaustive list of activities, such as being in physical proximity to an identified person or following an identified person from place to place; being at a specified place or within a specified distance of that place; or occupying a family home or a residence. A civil order refers to a binding order issued in civil and family law proceedings. These orders can go by various names (e.g., restraining orders, intervention orders, civil protection orders) and can have varying lengths and conditions attached to them. The definition in the proposed Regulations includes civil orders of any duration, including short-term emergency orders.

Defining “Other Competent Authority”

To support the definition of “protection order”, the proposed Regulations would also define the term “other competent authority” to ensure that orders issued, varied or revoked by officials other than courts (i.e., justices of the peace or councils, governments or other entities authorized to act on behalf of an Indigenous groups, community, or people that holds rights recognized and affirmed by section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982) are also captured. Legislative changes in former Bill C-21, when brought into force, would require these other officials, similar to courts, to report the issuance, variance and revocation of protection orders to CFOs. This in turn would allow CFOs to administer the law by issuing notices of refusals and revocations in accordance with existing requirements set out in the Firearms Act and regulations.

Issuance of Conditional Licence

To enhance implementation of this authority and support consistent decision making by CFOs, the proposed Regulations would amend the Firearms Licences Regulations to outline the requirements to apply for a conditional licence, including the need for the applicant to provide a statement with reasons explaining why they require the firearm for hunting or trapping to sustain themselves or their family. The proposed Regulations would also authorize CFOs to issue a conditional licence only when the application is for non-restricted firearms, mainly common rifles and shotguns, which are the firearms authorized for use in hunting activities across Canada.

Further, the proposed Regulations would require CFOs take into consideration a non-exhaustive list of factors prior to issuing a conditional licence:

In addition to these factors, CFOs would be required to continue to consider eligibility criteria set out in Firearms Act (e.g., whether the individual has a history of violent behaviour, or has been convicted of certain Criminal Code offences). The proposed Regulations would allow CFOs to continue using their existing discretionary authorities to consider other factors that they think may be relevant in a particular case. Further, CFOs would still be able to add any other terms and conditions they deem appropriate to the licence to mitigate any public safety risks.

As is the case with all individual licence applications, if a CFO issues a conditional licence, they would be required to give notice to the applicant’s spouse, common-law partner, and other person with whom the applicant is in a conjugal relationship at the time of making the application or with whom the applicant has been in a conjugal relationship within the two years before the application is made.

Regulatory development

Consultation

Following Royal Assent of former Bill C-21, engagement took place between May 2024 and December 2024 with provincial and territorial officials, Indigenous organizations and stakeholders. The intent of this engagement was to inform the development of the proposed Regulations and to identify implementation considerations.

Public Safety Canada convened a series of bilateral meetings with provinces and territories to raise awareness, discuss implementation considerations and gather input to assist in defining the term “protection order” in regulation. Officials also briefed Federal, Provincial, and Territorial tables co-led by Justice Canada, including the Coordinating Committee of Senior Officials, Victims Services and Heads of Court Administration. Some provincial and territorial partners provided input on the scope of what should or should not be included in the definition (e.g. merits of excluding emergency protection orders or peace bonds, inclusion of shorter-term or temporary orders) and discussed implementation considerations. These included potential impacts on decisions made by competent authorities and challenges associated with the reporting of a protection order and the ability of CFOs to action the revocation in a timely manner after receiving the court’s notification. Partners also noted the importance of having a process where individuals are able to access firearms, especially in northern or remote areas, for sustenance hunting, which would give them the means to have a food or income source to sustain themselves or their families.

During this same period, Public Safety Canada invited engagement with 53 Indigenous groups, including National Indigenous Organizations, self-governing and modern treaty First Nations and those previously engaged during the parliamentary process of former Bill C-21. While engagement remains ongoing, responses were received from nine groups. Indigenous organizations emphasized the importance of access to firearms for sustenance hunting and traditional cultural practices, the potential impact on the right to hunt and the exercise of rights recognized and affirmed in section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982, even in circumstances when a licence is revoked. One organization sought clarity on whether protection orders issued under Indigenous laws or the Indian Act would be contemplated in the development of the regulations. Also, the importance of recognizing the value of existing and local measures to protect communities and individuals from risks associated with firearms was raised.

Further, discussions with and written submissions from a number of firearm control advocates and victim advocacy groups offered a range of comments, including on the scope of the orders to be captured by the definition of protection orders and the issuance of conditional licences, recommending, among other things, that it be limited to individuals exercising a right recognized and affirmed by section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982.

Public Safety Canada has considered all feedback received from consultations in the development of the proposed Regulations, including the incorporation of protection orders made by councils, governments or other entities authorized to act on behalf of an Indigenous groups, community, or people that hold rights recognized and affirmed by section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982. These entities would include, for example, band councils who are acting pursuant to Indigenous laws or applicable governing laws. Further, feedback was incorporated in the development of the factors a CFO must consider prior to issuing a conditional licence by setting certain parameters around the issuance of these licences to allow a means to access firearms for sustenance hunting, while also prioritizing public safety and the safety of those who may be at risk of firearm violence. In some cases, feedback was not incorporated as it would have been inconsistent with the legislative framework or would have had an undue impact on those that rely on hunting to sustain themselves or their family. For example, while some stakeholders were of the view that the proposed Regulations should exclude individuals that have threatened to kill an intimate partner or ex-partner within the past five years from being eligible for a conditional licence, adding this exclusion would have conflicted with the legislative framework. The legislative amendments made by former Bill C-21 authorize a CFO to issue a conditional licence to individuals who 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.

Consultations with Canadians, provinces and territories, Indigenous organizations and stakeholders is ongoing and will continue to be undertaken as part of the Canada Gazette, Part I process. In addition to the 30-day pre-publication period, Public Safety Canada, in collaboration with RCMP Canadian Firearms Program, intends to invite technical briefs with provinces and territories, Indigenous groups and select stakeholders, such as gender-based violence, victim support and advocacy groups. This will help increase awareness on the proposal, provide an opportunity for external partners and stakeholders to share considerations and recommendations and promote the submission of formal feedback through the Online Regulatory Consultation System. As required by the Firearms Act, the proposed Regulations will be tabled in both Houses of Parliament for 30 sitting days as soon as possible.

Modern treaty obligations and Indigenous engagement and consultation

As required by the 2015 Cabinet Directive on the Federal Approach to Modern Treaty Implications, an assessment of modern treaty implications (AMTI) was conducted on this proposal. No specific self-government or modern treaty impacts were identified. The proposed Regulations would support the administrative process by which a conditional licence can be granted to those who would otherwise not qualify for a licence in limited circumstances, but require a firearm to hunt or trap for sustenance. In addition, the Aboriginal Peoples of Canada Adaptions Regulations (Firearms) continue to provide adaptions for Indigenous applicants applying for a licence (i.e., use of interpreter and providing oral statements, requiring CFO to give Indigenous applicants opportunity to provide recommendation if they are considering refusing to issue a licence).

Public Safety Canada will continue to incorporate feedback from Indigenous Peoples as this proposal moves forward through the regulatory process.

Please see the Consultation section for summary of Indigenous engagement.

Instrument choice

A review of other policy instruments was assessed as not being appropriate mechanisms to effectively achieve the public safety policy objectives of the new measures. For instance, a self-regulation and voluntary approach would require that courts and CFOs decide which binding orders are “protection orders”, which would not enable the legislative measures under the Firearms Act. A voluntary approach would create inconsistent application and implementation of the legislative measures.

Parliament decided through former Bill C-21 that defining the term in regulation would be the most appropriate mechanism to ensure limited ambiguity as to which orders would result in licence refusal and revocation. Given that the definition of “protection order” has the meaning assigned by regulations, regulatory amendments are required to enable the operationalization of some of the legislative measures made by former Bill C-21.

Prescriptive regulations are more appropriate given the range of civil orders that are available across Canada. While an outcome-based (performance based) regulation was also considered, it was assessed as inappropriate as it would require courts and CFOs to have the capacity and willingness to design the process (i.e., deciding on the meaning of “protection order” or factors for issuing a conditional licence for sustenance hunting or trapping) in achieving the policy outcomes of the measures.

With respect to conditional licence, while policy guidance can be used long-term to support implementation of the issuance of the licence, the proposed Regulations will help to ensure that a standardized approach to issuance of a conditional licences is taken across Canada by all CFOs.

Regulatory analysis

Benefits and costs

The federal government and provincial and territorial (PT) courts would incur most of the costsfootnote 2 for administrative and operational expenses to support the implementation of the proposed Regulations. Individual firearm owners would also incur costs if they are subject to protection orders and must surrender their firearms. Surrendered firearms are not returned to their owners. If they choose, they would also incur costs to reapply for a firearms licence.

The proposed regulatory amendments are expected to result in discounted costs of $20,169,082 in total costs and $254,321,196 in total benefits resulting in a net benefit of $234,152,114 equivalent to $33,456,703 annually.

An individual who is a licence holder will lose their licence privileges if they become subject to a protection order as defined in the proposed regulation and will not be eligible to apply for a licence until the protection order expires, or if the order is revoked by the competent authority that issued it. An individual who applies for a firearms licence and is subject to a protection order will also not be eligible to hold a licence for the duration the protection order is in place. Consequently, these individuals will not be entitled to enjoy some of the activities they would otherwise engage in (such as sports shooting or target practice). These costs do not have standing as they stem from a violation of the conditions of a licence. They have not been estimated.

The proposed Regulations will mainly benefit those who are at risk of firearm-related IPV. The benefits were calculated by estimating the number injuries and deaths that would be avoided once the proposed Regulations come into force. These results show net benefits of $234,152,114 equivalent to $33,456,703 annually, which significantly exceeds the cost of the regulatory proposal. The cost-benefit analysis also examined how much reduction in physical injuries, fatalities, and no-physical injuries for the costs and the benefits of the proposed Regulations to be equal. The results show that a 0.4% reduction from the baseline injuries, fatalities and no-physical injuries would be sufficient for the benefits to match the costs of the proposed Regulations. Stated differently; if, relative to the baseline, the regulations were to result nine less minor injuries, one less major injury, less than three fatalities, and less than 27 non-physical injuries, the benefits of the regulations would be almost equal to the costs.

The distribution of the costs and benefits are uneven. More men than women are firearm licence holders in Canada (by a ratio of 7:1), and the costs of the proposed Regulations will disproportionately impact male licence holders. However, more women than men are victims of IPV and are more likely to be harmed or killed by a firearm in these cases and would benefit from this regulatory proposal more than men as men make up only 7.4% of victims of firearm-related IPV incidents.

Geography also matters. Women experience far higher rates of firearm-related IPV in rural areas (8.1 per 100,000) and the rural North (31 per 100,000) compared with urban areas (4.1 per 100,000). This regulation could provide disproportionate safety benefits for populations in those areas. While more Canadians live in urban areas, this data shows that rural residents disproportionately experience higher rates of firearm violence relative to their population.

Baseline and regulatory scenario for protection orders and conditional license
1. Protection Orders

Baseline scenario

In the baseline scenario, the legislative measures related to protection orders in the Firearms Act made by former Bill C-21 are in force. However, until regulations are made by the Governor in Council to assign the definition of “protection order”, parts of the legislative regime on licence ineligibility and licence revocations are not operative. Courts and other competent authorities would not have a positive obligation to report the issuance, variance or revocation of protection orders to the CFO in their jurisdiction.

Eligibility to hold a licence by individuals subject to a protection order continues to be assessed by CFOs in accordance with criteria listed in the Firearms Act. Applicants will continue to need to disclose whether they are subject to or have been subject to a protection order in accordance with eligibility criteria set out in the Firearms Act. Further, any information that is provided to CFOs by anyone, including courts, will continue to be taken into consideration when determining the eligibility of the individual licence holder.

Regulatory scenario

In the regulatory scenario, the proposed Regulations that define “protection order” and the remaining complementary legislative measures related to protection orders contained in former Bill C-21 are in force.

Protection orders would be defined to capture a civil order made by a court or other competent authority in the interests of the safety or security of a person, including an order that prohibits the person from engaging in a non-exhaustive list of activities, such as being in proximity to an identified person or following that person from place to place; being at a specified place or within a specified distance of that place; or occupying a family home or a residence. The definition includes civil orders of any duration, including short-term emergency orders that are made pursuant to civil, family and Indigenous laws by a court or other competent authority.

Courts and other competent authorities, which will be a justice of the peace or a council, government or other entity that is authorized to act on behalf of an Indigenous group, community or people that holds rights recognized and affirmed by section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982, will be required to report protection orders they issue, vary, or revoke within 24 hours to CFOs in their jurisdiction. Most courts and other competent authorities will continue to use the same IM/IT mechanisms (i.e., email, mail or fax) for notifying CFOs of prohibition orders and other criminal orders (e.g., judicial interim release orders), while others may upgrade their practices.

When notices of issuance of protection orders are received, CFOs will be required to action licence refusals and revocations as a matter of law. In accordance with notification requirements under the Firearms Act and its regulations for the refusal of issuance or revocation of a licence, CFOs will send a notification to a licence holder or applicant. In the case of revocation, upon receipt of the notification, individuals that are in possession of firearms will be required to surrender them to a peace officer within 24 hours or within a time frame established by the CFO in the notice.

The federal government will receive and process all the protection orders from courts and competent authorities in order to action licence revocations. This is facilitated by the CFP receiving those orders, and enabling CFOs of jurisdiction to access them for their processing.

2. Conditional Licence

Baseline scenario

In the baseline scenario, CFOs can issue a conditional licence without the proposed Regulation being in force. CFOs are authorized to issue these to individuals who need a firearm to hunt or trap to sustain themselves or their family when their licence was revoked because they were convicted of an offence where they used, threatened or attempted violence against an intimate partner or family member, or when a CFO had reasonable grounds to suspect the individual may have engaged in domestic violence or stalking.

To apply for a conditional licence, these individuals need to submit a new licence application to a CFO in accordance with the existing requirements set out in the Firearms Licences Regulations and Aboriginal Peoples of Canada Adaptations Regulations (firearms) and identify themselves as a sustenance hunter. A CFO conducts eligibility screening and may ask for further information to determine eligibility. The application fee can be waived since it is for sustenance hunting. CFOs apply their discretion in issuing a firearms licence and can set further conditions as they deem appropriate.

Regulatory scenario

In the regulatory scenario, authorities for CFOs to issue a conditional licence under the Firearms Act and the proposed Regulations are in force.

With the proposed Regulations, CFOs would be required to consider several factors when determining whether to issue a conditional licence, including whether the application is to possess and acquire non-restricted firearms, whether hunting or trapping is the primary source of income or food, the nature and circumstances of the licence refusal or revocation. These factors are in addition to the existing eligibility criteria and would not limit other factors that CFOs can consider. Applicants would also be required to provide a written statement on the need for the firearm for sustenance hunting.

The regulatory scenario does not differ significantly from the baseline except that CFOs are specifically required to take into consideration several factors in their decision, and applicants would also be required to provide a written statement on the need for the firearm for sustenance hunting.

Incremental costs
Protection Order Costs

Government costs

The government will require new full-time staff members to enable the receipt and processing of protection orders to action licence revocations. There will be 12.16 program management staff members required to manually handle the 15,198 protection orders annually for the first two years. In subsequent years as automatic processing becomes possible with the installation of new IT systems, only one program management staff would be required to handle outstanding cases or smaller issues.

Information technology (IT) staff will be upgrading existing database systems in the RCMP to manage the workflow on protection orders. The bulk of this work will take place in the first two years as IT systems are brought online to automate the receipt of information from the courts and automate the licence holder search and revocation process. Four IT staff would be required each year for the two years, and one IT staff member for the remaining 8 years to handle updates and maintenance and to fix any issues.

Costs related to staff were estimated by multiplying the annual salaries of those staff positions by the number of staff over a ten-year period from 2025 to 2034. The cost would be $3,613,914 for staff members.

There will be IT costs for the government for the creation and development of computer systems to manage the data entry and processing. The costs amount to $570,381.

The discounted cost for the government is estimated at $4,184,295.

Courts and ‘other competent authorities’ costs

Costs to courts and competent authorities will be in court clerks carrying out the processing and notification of protection orders to CFOs. It is estimated nationally that there will be 12 full-time staff members over the ten-year period.

To determine this, an estimate was first made based on the number of protection orders made each year. This number was calculated using CFO data on protection orders issued in Manitoba and Newfoundland and Labrador from 2018 to 2019, as well as population data for both provinces. This information was extrapolated to determine the number of protection orders per capita nationally. As protection order data is not uniformly reported, CFO data is used from these provinces as it is reliable and available.footnote 3

The percentage of protection orders per capita (0.0410%) was applied to the Canadian population (37,058,856) to arrive at an estimated national number of protection orders of 15,198. This many protection orders would be applied to the average number of licence holders to determine how many of these individuals would be subject to a protection order. An estimate of the number of licence holders matching protection orders in Manitoba can be made using existing Manitoba data from 2018 where 7.93% of subjects of protection orders had their licences revoked.

In expanding this to the national level, using the Manitoba average of licence holders matching protection orders (7.93%), and adjusting for the national average number of licence holders compared with Manitoba (87%) out of 15,198 protection orders, we would expect to see 579 protection orders that would lead to licence revocation.

These 15,198 protection orders would need to be processed by the courts. Twelve staff members are estimated over a ten-year period to reflect the same assumptions for staff required at the RCMP for processing.

The annual salary of a court clerk is $50,134.50. The salary is equivalent to a court clerk working 37.5 hours a week for 52 weeks a year at an hourly salary of $25.71.

An assumption was made that it could take a court clerk up to 1.5 hours to process one protection order, including training. The processing of court orders is only one aspect of the job of a court clerk and the issuance of protection orders will vary by jurisdiction where some courts will issue these orders with far less frequently than others. It is not anticipated that each court will require the same number of staff members. As such, the estimate of staff members is considered reasonable.

The number of staff members was multiplied by the annual salaries to generate the cost over each of the 10 years of analysis.

The total discounted cost for courts and competent authorities is estimated at $4,225,485.

Costs to individual licence holders

When an individual has their licence revoked due to a protection order, they will have to surrender any firearms they possess and, if they choose, they may apply for a licence again once the protection order has expired. One result of this will be that these individuals will no longer be able to participate in activities where a firearm is used, such as sports shooting, hunting, or target practice. These costs do not have standing as they derive from a violation of the conditions of a licence. No estimates are provided for these costs.

There will be a cost for those who apply for a licence again and do not engage in sustenance hunting. This cost is estimated by multiplying the number of individual applications with the licence application fee. The number of applications is based on the number of revocation orders estimated to be issued annually (579) meaning that 579 people could be applying annually for a firearms licence, each paying the $60 licence fee (which is assumed to remain constant for the entire period).

The discounted cost to individuals for licence applications after a protection order expires is estimated at $246,452.

There will also be a cost for those who must surrender their firearms. To estimate this, the average cost of a firearm ($695) is multiplied with an estimated average of 2.7 firearms per individual. The number of individuals is 579 based on how many individuals are estimated to become subject to a protection order and hold a firearms licence, and the average number of revocation decisions which are due to a protection order. It is assumed that the number of firearms increases with population growth.

The discounted cost to individuals for surrendering their firearms is estimated at $7,707,789.

Including the lost benefits from licence holders who may engage in IPV after they apply and get a conditional licence, the discounted total cost to individuals is $11,759,303.

Costs to businesses

The proposal would only apply to individuals and would not cause any direct or known costs or benefits to businesses. The total costs to government, courts and competent authorities and individuals are estimated at $20,169,082

Incremental benefits
Protection Order Benefits

The benefits derive from the revocation and refusal of licences due to a current protection order and the subsequent surrendering of firearms.

The regulatory proposal addresses the risks associated with firearms in at-risk situations, including those of intimate partner and family violence. These amendments will benefit the health and safety of vulnerable populations because individuals who have engaged in activity that presents a risk will not be legally permitted to access firearms. Licence revocations and refusals are expected to reduce the number of injuries, fatalities and non-physical injuries in situations of IPV where a firearm is present.

As protection orders are issued at the discretion of the court or competent authority, it is challenging to provide a true estimate of the number of mandatory refusals or revocations that will result from protection orders. As such, data from Statistics Canada was used instead to estimate benefits in preventing fatalities and injuries by firearm in situations of intimate partner violence.

Data on police-reported gender-related homicide between 2011 and 2021 in Canada show that 1,125 women and girls were killed, and of these, 66% (two-thirds) were committed by an intimate partner. This data was used to estimate a yearly average rate of IPV-related homicides of 74.25 for women and 6 for men.

Finding consistent data on different types of firearm-related injuries during IPV incidents is challenging as these events tend to be underreported to police and can be measured by different methods or time periods, making comparisons difficult. Statistics Canada data was used to help estimate benefits on firearm-related injuries. In 2020, there were 218.5 minor injuries, 605.9 no physical injuries, and 59.6 unknown injuries. The latter was added to no physical injuries.

Statistics Canada data on the rate of firearm injuries and deaths caused by intimate partners shows that as the number of injuries doubles, the severity of those injuries goes down by half. Based on this observation, and in the absence of data on major injuries, the following annual estimates were created:

The expected benefits are proportional to the extent to which licence revocations and refusals mandated by the regulatory proposal will result in the reduction of these firearm-related IPV baseline fatalities and injuries.

To assess the likely impacts of the proposed Regulations, an extensive literature review was carried out to determine whether there is a significant relationship between restrictions on firearm access and IPV-related injuries and fatalities. The findings show that similar policies in other jurisdictions have led to a decrease in injuries and fatalities. One U.S. study concluded that states that had put in place firearm access restrictions like the proposed regulations saw a 9.7% reduction in IPV homicides.

The cost-benefit analysis uses this result to estimate the incremental impact of the proposed Regulations. In applying this study result to Canadian data, assumptions were made on similarities between Canada and the United States on firearm use during IPV incidents, such as a similar high risk of injury or death when a firearm is present, a similar female to male ratio in the population, and that higher numbers of women compared to men are victims of intimate partner violence in both countries. We assume that the 9.7% reduction applies to both IPV homicides and other types of injuries.

While this reduction rate of 9.7% was found for IPV homicides in the U.S. study, we have assumed given the different levels of access to firearms and overall different firearm regimes, 5% of this reduction would be considered baseline reduction. This reduction would also be attributable to CFO discretion in licence revocation, other recent regulations and the handgun freeze.

The benefits were then monetized using the value of statistical life. The estimates show total benefits over the ten-year period as:

Combined the total benefits over the ten-year period are $254,321,196 . With a total cost of $16,364,021, the net benefits are $234,152,114 equivalent to $33,456,703 annually.

Conditional Licence Benefits

Cost savings to individuals

For individuals, applicants for a conditional licence would apply in the same way as applying for a firearm licence, and they would also give a written statement on why they need a firearm for sustenance hunting or trapping. They would pay a $60 fee per application to use a non-restricted firearm, which would be waived if approved as this fee is waived for those who need a firearm to hunt or trap to sustain themselves or their families.

There is an estimated 86 sustenance hunters out of 579 people becoming subject to a protection order that would qualify for a conditional licence. This is based on one-quarter of 60% of gun owners who are hunters. Of these 86, it is estimated that 34 would be granted a conditional licence. For these 34 successful applicants, there would be a $2,040cost savings from the waived licence application fee ($60 * 34 = $2,040).

The cost to individuals to provide a written statement to the CFO on why they need a firearm for sustenance hunting or trapping is expected to be small. Applicants are already expected to potentially provide this, whether orally or in writing, to CFOs for a regular firearm licence if they identify themselves as a sustenance hunter and the CFO wants further information on this claim.

The total discounted savings from licence fees exemptions amount to $14,671 over ten years.

Cost of firearm surrender with a conditional licence

For the 34 licence holders that are granted a conditional licence, it is estimated that there would be costs to firearm surrender for half of their firearms as they would still own firearms that would not be used for sustenance hunting (e.g., handguns and other non-hunting guns). This is calculated with estimates shown earlier on the average cost of a firearm ($695) and the average number of firearms per owner (2.7), which comes to an estimated $31,900.50 cost per year for firearm surrender for individuals who would receive a conditional licence (34 * $695 * (2.7/2) = $31,900.50).

Potential impact on benefits from licence revocation

As some firearms will be allowed to remain with their owners who receive a conditional licence, this could potentially change the amount of benefits. However, with effective conditions on a licence, the benefits will likely remain.

To estimate the impact on providing a conditional licence, the total estimated benefits are divided by the number of revocations which gives an estimate of one revocation cost and benefits. In the first year, the total discounted benefits estimate is $33,681,929 divided by 579 revocations, giving a benefit of $58,174 each. This helps estimate the benefits that could be lost for each conditional licence issued.

Of the 34 people mentioned above who were granted a conditional licence, they are split into two categories – those who would still use their firearm improperly and those who would follow the conditions of the licence.

First it is assumed that one quarter of those who would have a conditional licence would still use a firearm in an IPV incident, and therefore there would be a reduction in benefits of $494,479to our society as though the person had never received a protection order at all (1/4 of 34 individuals * – $58,174) = – $494,479).

The benefits lost from those with conditional license still committing IPV are estimated at $3,805,062 equivalent to $541,755 a year.

As well, CFOs may impose specific conditions on these licences, which may include a requirement to store their firearms outside the home (e.g. off-site storage, storage with police, storage with a friend or family member). These conditions may or may not reduce the risk that an individual will use a firearm in an IPV situation depending on how they are implemented and enforced and where the firearms are stored.

Costs to Government

The costs to government related to conditional licenses are embedded in the total costs to government related to protection orders.

Cost-benefit statement
Table 1: Monetized Benefits
Impacted stakeholder   Description of benefit  Base year (2025) Other relevant years (2030) Final year
(2034)		 Total
(present value)		 Annualized value
Canadians Avoided minor injuries $180,922 $130,641 $100,682 $1,373,382 $195,539
Avoided major injuries $189,008 $136,479 $105,181 $1,434,759 $204,277
Avoided fatalities $33,036,504 $23,855,136 $18,384,514 $250,780,479 $35,705,498
Avoided - nonphysical injuries $275,495 $198,931 $153,311 $2,091,287 $297,752
License cost-saving $1,933 $1,396 $1,076 $14,671 $2,089
Total $33,502,940 $24,191,942 $18,644,081 $254,321,196 $36,405,156
Table 2: Monetized costs
Impacted stakeholder Description of cost Base year (2025) Other relevant years (2030) Final year (2034) Total (present value) Annualized value
Government         $4,184,295 $595,749
Staff $1,342,294 $129,950 $99,138 $3,613,914 $514,540
Information technologies $247,664 $35,316 $26,943 $570,381 $81,209
Courts and competent authoritie         $4,225,485 $678,443
Staff cost $562,256 $374,655 $305,830 $4,765,100 $678,443
Cost to Individuals         $11,759,303 $1,674,260
Firearms costs $1,015,384 $733,192 $1,030,388 $7,707,789 $7,954,241
Licence reapplications $32,466 $23,443 $18,067 $246,452 $35,089
Benefits lost from those with conditional license still committing IPV $501,259 $361,951 $278,946 $3,805,062 $541,755
All stakeholders  Total costs  $3,701,323 $1,658,508 $1,759,312 $20,169,082 $2,948,453
Table 3. Summary of monetized benefits and costs 
  Base year (2025) Other relevant years (2030) Final year (2034)  Total (present value) Annualized value
Total benefits $33,502,940 $24,191,942 $18,644,081 $254,321,196 $36,405,156
Total costs $3,701,323 $1,658,508 $1,759,312 $20,169,082 $2,948,453
Net benefits $29,801,617 $22,533,434 $16,884,769 $234,152,114 $33,456,703

Small business lens

The small business lens does not apply as the proposed Regulations will not result in any substantive benefit or cost to small businesses.

One-for-one rule

The one-for-one rule does not apply since the proposed Regulations will have no impact on businesses.

Regulatory cooperation and alignment

The proposed Regulations do not have links to any international agreements or obligations, and do not impact any other jurisdictions beyond Canada as the administrative process of issuing, refusing or revoking a licence is under the sole jurisdiction of CFOs who are authorized under the Firearms Act. The implementation of the proposed regulatory amendments would require coordination between courts administration services, competent authorities and CFOs to ensure protection orders that meet the definition prescribed in the proposed Regulations are reported within the 24-hour timeframe in accordance with the new legislative requirements set out in former Bill C-21, once in force.

Effects on the Environment

In accordance with the Cabinet Directive on Strategic Environmental and Economic Assessment, a preliminary scan concluded that a strategic environmental assessment is not required.

Gender-based analysis plus

A gender-based analysis was conducted to support development of the former Bill C-21 and the proposed Regulations. Measures to limit access to firearms are expected to have different impacts on certain populations in Canada. Women, particularly those living in rural areas, Indigenous women, and women with disabilities, and LGBTQ2+ persons are expected to disproportionately benefit from the proposed Regulations. On the other hand, men, as they are the majority of licence holders, are expected to be disproportionately impacted by any regulatory burden (e.g., refusal or revocation of firearms licences) imposed by the proposed Regulations.

While many firearms are used legally for hunting or sports shooting activities, there continues to be a persistent problem of firearms used against family members or intimate partners. As such, the proposed Regulations may benefit more women than men as protection orders are often issued in situations of IPV, family violence and gender-based violence where women are more likely to be the victims, and are more likely to be harmed or killed by the use of a firearm in those cases. In 2020, one in four (25%) female victims of firearm-related crime were victimized by an intimate partner compared to 2.2% of male victims. The majority (83%) of male victims were victimized by a stranger, with the remaining by a friend or casual acquaintance. As has historically been the case, in 2023, women accounted for a disproportionate number of victims of intimate partner homicide in Canada. This includes homicides committed by a current or former legally married or common-law spouse, dating partner, or other intimate partner. While there were 36 fewer victims of intimate partner homicides in 2023 (67 victims, down from 103 in 2022), women accounted for 73% of victims (Statistics Canada, 2024). In 2023, a firearm was present for 1,038 of victims IPV, and 84% of these victims were women and girls. The former percentage was higher than in 2018, when a firearm was present for 762 victims of IPV, 87% of whom were women and girls (Statistics Canada, 2024).

Certain populations in Canada continue to experience higher rates of IPV and exposure to firearm violence, such as women living in rural areas, Indigenous women, women with disabilities, and LGBTQ2+ persons. Indigenous women were approximately three times more likely to report having a gun or other weapon used or threaten to be used against them by an intimate partner than non-Indigenous women (Conroy, 2021; Cotter, 2018; Heidinger, 2021; Jaffrary, 2021; Perreault, 2011 and Rotenberg, 2019). Firearms ownership is also higher in rural communities and firearms are generally more accessible. For women, firearm-related IPV has been more frequent in rural areas. In 2020, 32% of firearm-related crime incidents with female victims involved IPV in the rural South and 38% in the rural North, and this follows a trend from previous years. These subpopulations, women living rural areas and Indigenous women, would disproportionately benefit from the proposed Regulations as the proposal would ensure that anyone, including partners and former partners subject to a protection order do not have access to firearms for the duration of the order unless they have established to the satisfaction of a CFO that they require a firearm for the purpose of hunting or trapping to sustain themselves or their family.

The Firearms Act applies equally to all Canadians. However, the vast majority of firearms licence holders are men (the ratio of male to female licensees is approximately 7:1). As such, any regulatory burden that the amendments may impose on individuals is likely to predominantly impact men.

From a geographical and cultural impact, protection orders are available in most jurisdictions across Canada. It is unknown whether the issuance of protection orders have a disproportionate impact on persons living in rural and urban regions or Indigenous peoples. However, many owners of non-restricted firearms tend to be in rural areas in Canada and many licence holders in northern communities hunt or trap to sustain themselves or their families. From a cultural consideration, Indigenous peoples may use a firearm for hunting activities, including sustenance hunting, and as part of traditional cultural practices. The proposed Regulations could potentially impact these individuals more compared to licence holders in other regions with lower rates of these activities should they become subject to a protection order. Measures introduced by former Bill C-21 that authorize a CFO to issue a conditional licence for sustenance hunting or trapping is expected to help mitigate any impacts.

Further, recognizing that Indigenous peoples have had challenges in obtaining firearms licences for many reasons (i.e., access to CFOs, access to safety courses), the existing adaptations under the Aboriginal Peoples of Canada Adaptations Regulations (Firearms) will continue to apply so that Indigenous applicants for a conditional licence can have reduced barriers to the application process.

Rationale

The Government of Canada recognizes the increased harm firearms can pose in circumstances where safety risks are already present, including in at-risk situations involving IPV and family violence.

In Canada, ownership of a firearm is not a right, it is a privilege. The firearms regime in Canada already contemplates the revocation of firearms licences and removal of firearms in situations where criminal orders (i.e., prohibition orders) have been issued by courts. To enhance the firearms regime and further contribute to the reduction of IPV and family violence, the proposed Regulations would establish a separate, but complementary, regime for the revocation of firearms licences and removal of firearms when civil orders are made by courts and other competent authorities in the interest of the safety and security of a person.

As these orders can range widely by jurisdiction, prescribing a definition of “protection order” to capture any civil order, including ones issued temporarily or to address emergency situations, best ensures that the new legislative measures can help prevent firearm violence and reduce risks to public safety.

Currently, when steps are taken by individuals to seek protection from those who pose a safety risk to them through civil and family courts, it does not automatically result in the loss of firearm licences privileges or the surrender of firearms. While some courts and other competent authorities can place restrictions on protection orders preventing the possession of firearms or requiring their seizure for the duration of the order, this is not a consistent practice across Canada. Further, most courts are not obligated to report the issuance of protection orders to the CFOs. As a result, the proposed Regulations would support the implementation of a consistent process for the removal of firearms in situations of IPV and family violence when protection orders are issued that would not otherwise result in the mandatory loss of firearm licence privileges and the surrender of firearms.

Further, the proposed Regulations set out the type of entity that would be considered an “other competent authority” for the purpose of the regime. This is required to recognize decision-makers other than provincial or territorial court judges that are authorized to issue these types of orders.

The proposed Regulations would also limit duplication and support effective implementation of the firearms licensing regime. The existing firearms regime already accounts for the removal of firearms and loss of firearms licence privileges when courts determine that an individual should be prohibited from possessing and having access to firearms under the Criminal Code and other Acts of Parliament. Further, other orders which include recognizance orders (i.e., peace bonds), judicial interim orders (i.e., bail orders), probation orders and no-contact orders (i.e. conditions added to bail or probation orders) operate within the criminal law regime which allows courts to attach weapons prohibition when these orders are issued. An order made under the Criminal Code or any other Act of Parliament that has a weapons prohibition attached to it becomes a prohibition order and firearms licences must be revoked and firearms must be surrendered and may be forfeited.

Finally, incorporating prohibition orders into the definition of protection order in the proposed Regulations could lead to unintentional consequences, such as creating conflicts in the application of existing firearms laws. For example, if prohibition orders were also captured under the definition of “protection orders” in the proposed Regulations, there would be a conflict in the authorizations relied upon by CFOs to issue licences to individuals for sustenance hunting. If a person is subject to a prohibition order, they are able to seek a court order to have the prohibition order lifted for the purposes of sustenance hunting and trapping or where the prohibition would constitute a virtual ban against employment in the only vocation open to the person. If this court order to lift to prohibition order is granted, the CFO would be authorized under the Criminal Code to issue a licence for those purposes. In comparison, if a person is subject to a protection order a CFO would only be authorized under the Firearms Act to issue a licence for the purpose of sustenance hunting and trapping.

Therefore, the proposed definition of “protection order” targeting civil orders contributes to the public safety objectives of the former Bill C-21 or the Firearms Act. The proposed definition would support the operationalization of a separate but complementary regime to the existing provisions of the Criminal Code in order to address instances of IPV, gender based violence, domestic violence and family violence address through civil matters that may not meet thresholds of criminal behaviour.

Implementation, compliance and enforcement, and service standards

The proposed Regulations would come into force at the same time as the enabling legislative amendments, section 15 and section 41 in former Bill C-21. These enabling legislative amendments will come into force on a day fixed by Order in Council, targeting Fall 2025. This will be informed by ongoing engagement with provincial and territorial officials and court administrators as well as other competent authorities to support effective implementation.

The RCMP Canadian Firearms Program (CFP) is taking steps to prepare to implement measures related to protection orders when they become operative (i.e., when the definition of the term protection order is made in regulation). This includes updates to existing IM/IT systems, the development of internal documentation (policies, standard operating procedures, call centre scripts, communication products for CFOs and law enforcement), and updates to client notices, and will be implemented in a phased approach.

In phase 1, the CFP would implement a centralized mechanism for courts and competent authorities to provide protection order information. This information, and updates to associated internal documentation, would support CFOs in implementing the enhanced revocation and ineligibility provisions related to protection orders. In Phase 2, the CFP would implement a web-based portal for courts to provide protection order information directly into the RCMP system(s), and will explore opportunities to leverage automated data transfers with jurisdictions that use digital court data management systems. Public Safety Canada, the CFP and Justice Canada continue to engage with provinces and territories, including courts administrators, as well as other competent authorities to support implementation planning.

A Privacy Impact Assessment is underway and will be completed prior to IM/IT implementation changes and has received interim approval from program officials and the delegate responsible for section 10 of the Privacy Act.

Public Safety Canada, in partnership with the Royal Canadian Mounted Police’s Canadian Firearms Program, would communicate the coming into force of legislative provisions and associated regulatory amendments to the public through the Public Safety Canada and Canadian Firearms Program website. Information would be available through the Canadian Firearms Program Contact Centre and existing mechanisms would be used to communicate with to help raise awareness of the new measures. Further, Public Safety Canada and the Canadian Firearms Program will continue ongoing collaboration with provincial and territorial and Indigenous partners to ensure effective implementation of the legislative and regulatory regime.

Contact

Firearms Policy Directorate - Public Safety Canada
ps.firearms-armesafeu.sp@ps-sp.gc.ca

PROPOSED REGULATORY TEXT

Notice is given that the Governor in Council proposes to make the annexed Regulations Amending the Firearms Licences Regulations under paragraphs 117(a)footnote a, (a.01)a, (b) and (w) of the Firearms Act footnote b.

Interested persons may make representations concerning the proposed Regulations within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice. They are strongly encouraged to use the online commenting feature that is available on the Canada Gazette website but if they use email, mail or any other means, the representations should cite the Canada Gazette, Part I, and the date of publication of this notice, and be sent to the Firearms Policy Directorate, Crime Prevention Branch, Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, 269 Laurier Avenue West, Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0P8 (email: ps.firearms-armesafeu.sp@ps-sp.gc.ca).

Ottawa, February 4, 2025

Janna Rinaldi
Acting Assistant Clerk of the Privy Council

Regulations Amending the Firearms Licences Regulations

Amendments

1 The Firearms Licences Regulations footnote 4 are amended by adding the following after section 1:

1.01 (1) For the purposes of the Act, protection order means a civil order made by a court or other competent authority in the interests of the safety or security of a person, including an order that prohibits the person from

(2) In subsection (1), other competent authority means a justice of the peace or a council, government or other entity that is authorized to act on behalf of an Indigenous group, community or people that holds rights recognized and affirmed by section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982.

2 The Regulations are amended by adding the following after section 2:

2.1 For the purposes of section 70.3 of the Act, the circumstances are that:

3 Subsection 3(1) of the Regulations is amended by striking out “and” at the end of subparagraph (ii), by adding “and” at the end of paragraph (d) and by adding the following after paragraph (d):

4 Subsection 8.3(1) of the Regulations is amended by striking out “and” at the end of paragraph (b), by adding “and” at the end of paragraph (c) and by adding the following after paragraph (c):

5 Subsection 9(1) of the Regulations is amended by striking out “and” at the end of paragraph (a), by adding “and” at the end of paragraph (b) and by adding the following after paragraph (b):

Coming into Force

6 These Regulations come into force on the first day on which section 15 of An Act to amend certain Acts and to make certain consequential amendments (firearms), chapter 32 of the Statutes of Canada, 2023, is in force, but if these Regulations are registered after that day, they come into force on the day on which they are registered.

Terms of use and Privacy notice

Terms of use

It is your responsibility to ensure that the comments you provide do not:

  • contain personal information
  • contain protected or classified information of the Government of Canada
  • express or incite discrimination on the basis of race, sex, religion, sexual orientation or against any other group protected under the Canadian Human Rights Act or the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
  • contain hateful, defamatory, or obscene language
  • contain threatening, violent, intimidating or harassing language
  • contain language contrary to any federal, provincial or territorial laws of Canada
  • constitute impersonation, advertising or spam
  • encourage or incite any criminal activity
  • contain external links
  • contain a language other than English or French
  • otherwise violate this notice

The federal institution managing the proposed regulatory change retains the right to review and remove personal information, hate speech, or other information deemed inappropriate for public posting as listed above.

Confidential Business Information should only be posted in the specific Confidential Business Information text box. In general, Confidential Business Information includes information that (i) is not publicly available, (ii) is treated in a confidential manner by the person to whose business the information relates, and (iii) has actual or potential economic value to the person or their competitors because it is not publicly available and whose disclosure would result in financial loss to the person or a material gain to their competitors. Comments that you provide in the Confidential Business Information section that satisfy this description will not be made publicly available. The federal institution managing the proposed regulatory change retains the right to post the comment publicly if it is not deemed to be Confidential Business Information.

Your comments will be posted on the Canada Gazette website for public review. However, you have the right to submit your comments anonymously. If you choose to remain anonymous, your comments will be made public and attributed to an anonymous individual. No other information about you will be made publicly available.

Comments will remain posted on the Canada Gazette website for at least 10 years.

Please note that communication by email is not secure, if the attachment you wish to send contains sensitive information, please contact the departmental email to discuss ways in which you can transmit sensitive information.

Privacy notice

The information you provide is collected under the authority of the Financial Administration Act, the Department of Public Works and Government Services Act, the Canada–United States–Mexico Agreement Implementation Act,and applicable regulators’ enabling statutes for the purpose of collecting comments related to the proposed regulatory changes. Your comments and documents are collected for the purpose of increasing transparency in the regulatory process and making Government more accessible to Canadians.

Personal information submitted is collected, used, disclosed, retained, and protected from unauthorized persons and/or agencies pursuant to the provisions of the Privacy Act and the Privacy Regulations. Individual names that are submitted will not be posted online but will be kept for contact if needed. The names of organizations that submit comments will be posted online.

Submitted information, including personal information, will be accessible to Public Services and Procurement Canada, who is responsible for the Canada Gazette webpage, and the federal institution managing the proposed regulatory change.

You have the right of access to and correction of your personal information. To seek access or correction of your personal information, contact the Access to Information and Privacy (ATIP) Office of the federal institution managing the proposed regulatory change.

You have the right to file a complaint to the Privacy Commission of Canada regarding any federal institution’s handling of your personal information.

The personal information provided is included in Personal Information Bank PSU 938 Outreach Activities. Individuals requesting access to their personal information under the Privacy Act should submit their request to the appropriate regulator with sufficient information for that federal institution to retrieve their personal information. For individuals who choose to submit comments anonymously, requests for their information may not be reasonably retrievable by the government institution.