Public Safety Committee on Dec. 14th, 2021

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

I believe, Mr. Chair, because the clause we are considering is already before the committee, Ms. Dancho is in order in proposing a subamendment at this time. It is not a brand new motion that none of us has ever seen before, so I think her subamendment at this time is in order. I think it's been the practice of many committees that I've been on. I'm following along quite easily.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jim Carr]

As long as members are comfortable that they're following the gist of the substance of the subamendment, then we're okay.

Is there other commentary on Ms. Dancho's subamendment? The floor is open.

[The Clerk]

We have Mr. McKinnon, sir, followed by Madame Michaud.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jim Carr]

Go ahead, Mr. McKinnon.

[Ron McKinnon, Liberal, Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to speak in opposition to this particular subamendment. I think that the first part of it is incorporated already in the House motion. There's no need to strengthen that or emphasize it. It is what it is. We cannot in any way reduce the strength of what the House has given to us. That's the main point.

I don't have a problem with recognizing the involvement. The involvement that we recognize might well be an increase, but I don't want to presuppose that outcome, so I would oppose this subamendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jim Carr]

Go ahead, Madame Michaud.

[Kristina Michaud, Bloc, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would like a clarification.

Ms. Dancho would like to see the word “increasing” or “serious” added in front of the word “involvement” to strengthen the wording in point 4. Is this correct? Was there another word added? I'm not sure I wrote it all down.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jim Carr]

Ms. Dancho, would you please repeat and clarify?

[Raquel Dancho, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Thank you, Ms. Michaud.

To clarify again, I'm trying to emphasize the importance of gang violence in this study. Right now as it stands, paragraph (ii) says, “recognizing the involvement of gangs in firearms”, which I don't believe gives nearly enough emphasis on the serious issue of gang violence in Montreal and what's been happening. I think we take out “recognizing” and simply say, “the increasing involvement of gangs and firearms”. That would be the first part.

At the very end of point (ii), we would add “and causes of high recidivism rates”, because we know with gang violence that repeat offenders cause a lot of these shootings and the violent crime that we're seeing in our cities.

It's including a lot. We're now going to be looking at programs. I think that if we're going to be expanding it in the way Ms. Damoff is recommending, then we certainly must be looking at the rate of recidivism in Canada, because that is a part of the gang violence that we're seeing.

The aim of my subamendment is to focus attention on the problem, which is gang violence. It's perhaps not the most eloquent wording, but it's on the fly.

Thanks.

[Kristina Michaud, Bloc, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jim Carr]

I think “on the fly” is an appropriate description of many things.

Ms. Damoff, the floor is yours.

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Oakville North—Burlington, ON]

Thanks, Chair.

I think the first change is redundant. I don't think we need to add that. It's included in “illegally diverted”. I'm ambivalent about whether it says “recognizing” or “increasing”; it doesn't really matter. As I said, I used the wording from a previous motion at public safety, hoping that we wouldn't have to debate, but “increasing” is fine.

I think adding “causes of high recidivism” could be covered under the wording that's already there. If that's the focus people want to take when we have witnesses, including the witnesses they choose to call, I think it's already covered in the wording that is there.

I think the changes are not needed, to be honest with you. We'll accomplish the same things with what we've already done and put forward.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jim Carr]

I have Mr. Lloyd.

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB]

Chair, I'm rereading this in support of my colleague's amendments, but one thing that is confusing to me and might be confusing to Canadians when they read this study is the final line after “include in this study the following urgent issues in relation to firearms” which reads “address the causes of youth gang involvement, programs that prevent recruitment and retention and diversion”.

I don't think we're talking about programs that are preventing diversion. It seems kind of confusing there. We should be talking about programs that are encouraging diversion. The wording is confusing, because it says that we're reviewing programs that prevent diversion, but we should be looking at programs that encourage it, unless I'm mistaken on the purpose of the term “diversion”. It's kind of unclear. Maybe that could use some clearer wording as well.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jim Carr]

Go ahead, Ms. Dancho.

[Raquel Dancho, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

I didn't have my hand up, but I do have a comment.

I think my issue with “illegally diverted” is that it's not the common terminology that we see. Again, 80% of gun violence in Canada is a result of gun smuggling across the U.S. border.

It may be redundant, but the way it is worded currently does not make it clear that this is the aim. If we want to look at the original motion as Ms. Michaud wrote it, which is “illegal arms trafficking”, we could also use that language.

“Illegally diverted” is not the recognized term I've seen when discussing this with the stakeholders, with police forces, forces at the border and victims rights' advocates. “Smuggling over the border” is perhaps a colloquial term, but again, if you're not happy with that, I recommend that we talk about perhaps another subamendment to say “illegal arms trafficking”.

I'm certainly not happy with the way it's written right now, because it's not clear what the aim of it is.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jim Carr]

Are there other comments on Ms. Dancho's subamendment?

I have Mr. Van Popta and then Mr. Shipley.

[Tako Van Popta, Conservative, Langley—Aldergrove, BC]

Thank you.

In support of what my colleague Ms. Dancho said, I agree that the term “illegally diverted” is not clear to me.

I had a question in question period a while ago relating to the source of firearms used in crimes. Minister Blair said there are three sources: They're stolen from legal gun owners, they're straw purchased or they are smuggled in. Those are the three categories that he used.

I'm just not sure what the term “illegally diverted“ means. Is that just a general term that captures all sources of firearms used in crime?

Let's just stick to colloquial and accepted language that's commonly understood.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jim Carr]

Okay. We've had a pretty good discussion on this. If there are no more hands up, I would proceed to a vote on Ms. Dancho's subamendment.

Clerk, how do you proceed in this case? Do we do a recorded vote?

[The Clerk]

Yes, sir.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jim Carr]

Okay. All those in favour of—

[The Clerk]

I'm sorry, sir. It's a recorded division.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jim Carr]

Yes. It's a recorded division, correct?

[The Clerk]

Yes, that's correct. I'm going to go ahead, then.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jim Carr]

Go ahead.

Yes, Mr. MacGregor?