Public Safety Committee on Dec. 14th, 2021

[The Chair, Liberal, Jim Carr]

Thank you.

Ms. Dancho is next.

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

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.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jim Carr]

Thank you.

Go ahead, Mr. Van Popta.

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

Thank you.

Much of what I was intending to say has already been said.

I agree with Ms. Damoff that these are all very important studies. I do remember from the previous Parliament that we wanted to undertake some of these studies, particularly relating to gang violence. However, the study is becoming very broad with the inclusion of these additional considerations. I would support any initiative to commence a separate study for these very important topics. To include them in this one, I think, is probably loading too much onto it.

I respect Mr. MacGregor's compromise position, but I would say that the original wording is probably good enough the way it is without including (b) in the motion at all. I would advocate to keep it a narrower study for now, knowing that the door is always open for us to introduce these studies. I would certainly support that at that time.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jim Carr]

Thank you.

Go ahead, Ms. Damoff.

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

Thank you very much, Chair.

I appreciate our colleague from the NDP. We're going to give him a referee jersey to be the mediator in this discussion. We very much appreciate his suggestions.

I am also appreciative of the Conservative Party members saying they are willing to study femicides, mental health and suicides. I will hold your feet to the fire on that one and take you at your word that you are interested in studying those issues. They are incredibly important.

I recall speaking to a women's shelter from Lethbridge, Alberta, who said that every single woman who came into that shelter was there because of a firearm in the home. Women in Canada should not be afraid and should not be dying because of firearms. We need to be taking that seriously and studying it, so I will take you at your word that you are interested in studying that issue at a later date.

The first and the fourth additions I put forward would be important to include. While I can't remember who said that the language was not strong enough, Mr. Van Popta will remember we spent hours coming up with wording on gangs. In the spirit of trying not to debate that, I used the wording that we decided on with Mr. Kurek and Mr. Sikand at the time, and all of us were involved.

Mr. MacGregor's compromise of including (i) and (iv) and dropping the middle two would be agreeable. Perhaps, Chair, I could suggest that maybe we vote on each of the four separately, or if Mr. MacGregor wants to amend my amendment to remove those two middle ones, that would be fine with me as well.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jim Carr]

I have Mr. McKinnon with a hand up. I will ask him first.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would like to speak in favour of this amendment. All of these issues are inextricably intertwined, and it's very important that we consider them all.

It is fully in keeping with the spirit of the House amendment. It should be noted that we cannot reduce the scope of the House amendment. Whatever we do here can only expand it, so if you find that the wording in the House motion is stronger, then that is what shall prevail.

Really, the true scope of the study is going to be determined by the witnesses we call, which is really up to all of us, and the questions we ask of those witnesses. There's no reason for that to dilute the results of this study. The analysts are very adept at extracting the information that is presented to us by the various witnesses. Then we, of course, are fully able to put forward our recommendations as well.

Having said that, I have no problem with supporting Mr. MacGregor's amendment, should he wish to amend Ms. Damoff's amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jim Carr]

Thank you.

Madame Michaud, please go ahead.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Mr. MacGregor. I, too, am very fond of compromise, but in this case I will maintain my original position so that we can focus on the original motion referred from the House. The motion already mentions street gangs. We want to focus specifically on the gun trade. I will repeat exactly what Mr. Van Popta said. These are extremely important issues that have been added by Ms. Damoff, but I think it would dilute what we want to focus on at the moment. Although the compromise is reasonable, I still maintain my position to keep the original motion and not to amend it. So I am against the amendment, unfortunately.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jim Carr]

Thank you.

Mr. MacGregor, the suggestion has been forwarded that you may want to consider an amendment to Ms. Damoff's amendment. Can we hear from you, please?

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

For your benefit, and for the benefit of the clerk and all committee members, I will formally move that we amend Ms. Damoff's amendment by deleting paragraphs (ii) and (iii). By virtue of that, we keep (i) and (iv), which I guess we can renumber as part of the new clause (b).

[The Chair, Liberal, Jim Carr]

Maybe just for clarity, we should not only renumber them but also remind committee members of the substance within them. If you could read them, that would be helpful.

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

Yes. If we were to delete those two, Chair, the new section would read as follows:

b) include in this study the following urgent issues in relation to firearms:

(i) all the ways that firearms are illegally diverted, including domestic diversion;

Then there is (ii). This is the renumbered one:

(ii) recognizing the involvement of gangs in firearms, the review of the programs that address the causes of youth gang involvement, programs that prevent recruitment and retention and diversion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jim Carr]

Thank you.

We now have the proposed subamendment to Ms. Damoff's amendment. It is there for members for commentary. Do I see any hands?

I think I see a hand. Whose hand is that?

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

It's Dane Lloyd, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jim Carr]

Go ahead.

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

I'm wondering, given that nobody else is speaking to this, if we can move it to a vote and possibly get it through with unanimous consent.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jim Carr]

That would be an excellent place to start. Let's ask members of the committee if there's unanimous consent for this subamendment to Ms. Damoff's amendment.

Do we have unanimous consent?

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

No.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jim Carr]

We do not.

Go ahead, Mr. Van Popta.

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

I have a question, for clarity. We vote on the amendment, but then we go back to the original motion, right? If I think the motion is better with Mr. MacGregor's subamendment, I would vote in favour, but I could still vote against the main motion, right?

[The Chair, Liberal, Jim Carr]

Yes. Well, if the amendment passes, then—

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

That's if the amendment passes, of course.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jim Carr]

Yes.