Thank you. Mr. Chair. I appreciate Mr. MacGregor's recommendation.
I think overall the amendment does sort of take away the focus and the work done by our colleague Ms. Michaud on behalf of Quebec and the people of Montreal, who have been significantly suffering over the last number of weeks from serious issues with criminal gang violence and gun violence. I do think the focus should be kept on the motion, which was very inclusive of a lot of the spirit of what Ms. Damoff is hoping to achieve in her amendment. If we look at it again, it says, “as a priority, a study on gun control, illegal arms trafficking, and the increase in gun crimes committed by street gangs.”
To me, and I know to many members of this committee, the focus of this study is urgent, and it needs to be on gang members and illegal arms trafficking. As we know, 80% of gun crime in Canada is from gun smuggling. To me, it is quite a large oversight that this amendment by Ms. Damoff unfortunately does not include that. I was particularly concerned about number four, which says, “recognizing the involvement of gangs in firearms”. I don't believe that language is nearly strong enough. It is the number one issue in the Bloc's motion that we need to be focusing on, and the way it is worded sort of downplays the significance of the focus of the Bloc's original motion.
I do have significant concerns that we are broadening the scope, diluting what Ms. Michaud was hoping to study. I do agree with my colleague Mr. Lloyd that these are all worthy of study, but it does broaden the scope beyond what Ms. Michaud was hoping to do and also does not focus enough on the gang issue and the trafficking, particularly across the U.S. border. I have considerable concerns. I do believe the motion as it was directed from the House is sufficient in terms of narrowing the scope and increasing the urgency of this study.