Debates of Oct. 27th, 2020

Criminal Code

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

Mr. Speaker, I will start with the second question first. I agree that more money and resources should go to palliative care. People should be given a real choice. If the choice is between intolerable suffering or seeking medical assistance in dying, that is not a real choice.

As for conflating medical assistance in dying with suicide, the point that I was making was that Bill C-14 amended section 241 of the Criminal Code, which is the provision dealing with suicide.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, very few subjects in federal politics are more sensitive than the one before us today as parliamentarians. Of course, this all comes from the Carter decision by the Supreme Court of Canada that Canadians had a constitutional right to access physician-assisted death. Therefore, our job is to craft the best possible system to facilitate that right while we ensure there are the proper protections.

My question is about one of the challenges created by the current medical assistance in dying legislation, which is the requirement for final consent at the time assistance is rendered. This sometimes forces those already assessed and approved for medical assistance in dying to make a cruel choice when faced with the possible loss of competence that would then make them unable to give consent, with the result that they are forced to go earlier or risk not being able to receive the assistance they need to avoid continuing to live with intolerable pain.

I wonder if my hon. colleague has some comments on how the government ought to best deal with that situation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I agree with the hon. member that this is probably one of the most difficult and sensitive questions in this whole legislative framework.

Whose decision is it when it is the right time to inject a lethal substance? If it is not the person receiving it making that final call, whose call is it to decide when the right time is to do it? It is equally difficult the other way.

[Marc Dalton, Conservative, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will read a post by a well-known physician in Ridge Meadows Hospital in Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge. It states, “I personally have had a patient undergo MAID who would have had a very good chance of living for 5 or more years. The quality of care and the decision to administer MAID was very questionable in my view and when I contacted the coroner to request a review was told that these cases are not reviewable by the coroner's service. Where is the oversight?”

Would the member comment on oversight? A lot of these have been taken off.

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

Mr. Speaker, that is a very good and important question, but there is no easy answer to it. Of course, there is patient confidentiality, so that information would not be readily available to the public because it was a decision that a patient made in consultation with their doctor.

I would say to keep the 90-day reflection period in and clean up the language to make it much clearer so that doctors and other health care providers understand what the guidelines are. Right now it is too confusing.

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Montarville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have to say that I am very happy to be participating in this debate, not because it is an exciting or joyful topic, but because it is nevertheless a crucially important social debate.

The constitutional distribution of power means that we can talk about one issue in both legislatures. I had the immense privilege of sitting here for 12 years, then sitting in the National Assembly for 13 years, and then coming back here on October 21 of last year. I have had the opportunity to discuss issues relating to same sex marriage, the subject of a civil union bill in Quebec. When I was an MP, I had an opportunity to talk about gun control. As minister of and official opposition critic for public safety, I debated a gun registry bill in Quebec. When I was an MNA, we talked about end-of-life care and medical assistance in dying. Now I am back in Ottawa, where we are discussing medical assistance in dying once again.

We have heard plenty of relevant arguments on both sides, extremely well-thought-out legal arguments as well as moral arguments.

I do not normally do this in the House, but my speech will be far more personal than usual, because this moral issue is close to my heart.

First, I would like to point out that I am a man of faith. I am Catholic; I was baptized and raised Catholic, but my convictions go much further than that. I do believe that a higher power created the universe, because there is no other way to explain creation other than by that sort of demiurgic form that created the universe. Some have a name for this higher power; others have several names. I think we are all talking about essentially the same thing.

Some people invoke their beliefs, their faith, to say that it is wrong to end a life. I have something to say about that, since it is part of my Catholic upbringing: we should live our lives to the very end, no matter how much we suffer. However, I refuse to believe that the Creator wants his creatures to suffer. I simply cannot bring myself to believe that, first of all.

Secondly, I like to think that if there really is a Creator and he expects certain things of us, then is it not up to each and every one of us to stand before our Creator when we leave this earth and not interfere in other people's lives and the choices they have to make?

It is not for us to determine the choices individuals make. Life is fair in that the same outcome awaits us all, but it is unfair in that the outcome does not await us all in the same way. In some cases, the outcome is gentler, in other cases it is marked by incredible suffering. In some cases, the outcome arrives more quickly and in other cases, much later. The outcome might be the same for everyone, but it is not equitable for everyone and each and every one of us will have to endure suffering to varying degrees.

I can understand some people saying enough is enough, they have had it. Since the outcome is inevitable, if the person no longer wants to suffer, why would we allow them to continue to suffer and even force them to continue to suffer?

I believe that if our faith means something, it must let us be compassionate. To be compassionate is not to watch someone suffer and relish their suffering because we want them to live it to the end, but, on the contrary, to support them in whatever choice they make. If they choose to leave this earth earlier to put an end to their suffering, which will lead them to this inevitable outcome anyway, I think that our duty as believers, human beings and political decision-makers is to support this person's choice and decision.

That is why, as a believer, as someone born and educated as a Catholic, I call on this faith and education not to oppose end-of-life care and medical assistance in dying, but to encourage it, to ensure that it is made possible. In fact, I believe that our role is not to judge what someone else wants to make of their end of life, but to support them in the decision they make for themselves for their end of life.

I said somewhat the same thing as what I just said before the Quebec National Assembly when I was a member there. When I expressed this opinion at the time, it generated a lot of interest from the bishop of the diocese in Saint-Jean-Longueuil, where I live. Bishop Gendron invited me to dinner at his home, where we ate spaghetti and talked a little bit about all of this. He wanted to understand where I was coming from as a Catholic to say that I was in favour of medical assistance in dying. I told him that I was in favour of abortion for the same reasons. My Catholic beliefs are what led me to be in favour of abortion because, if it is true that the Creator is opposed to abortion, then it will be up to the individual to stand before our Creator and give account when she leaves this world. It is not up to us to judge that woman or to impute motives that will make the already difficult decision of having an abortion even harder for her.

Similarly, I was proud to vote in favour of same sex marriage in the House. I told my bishop that I could not believe a religion that emphasizes love so much would refuse to accept that people love each other.

Because of my Catholic convictions and my faith in our shared humanity, I believe that we must not judge others' choices, whether we are talking about love lives, terminating an unwanted pregnancy or unbearable suffering. It is not up to us to judge these choices. Our role, as human beings, as decision-makers, is to support these people's choices.

I touched on this at the beginning of my speech and I want to close in the same vein: The people of Verchères, and now Montarville, have entrusted me to represent them, and I have had the immense privilege, during my wonderful career, to be able to speak to certain social issues that are at the very core of what I just mentioned, specifically that we all have an obligation to support others and refrain from judging them.

[Ron Liepert, Conservative, Calgary Signal Hill, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I enjoyed listening to the presentation by my colleague from the Bloc Québécois. It is not very often that I find myself agreeing with just about everything he said.

I ask the member for his thoughts on what I am hearing from the majority of my constituents. They support medical assistance in dying but are asking that we look at going somewhat further, with things like advance consent for when people are no longer of sound mind and cannot make a medical decision. I would like the member's impression on whether or not that is something we should be allowing sooner rather than later. Also, how can we get the government to undertake this study immediately?

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Montarville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question, because it allows me to address another issue, one that is just as important as what I talked about in my speech.

If one detects early signs of a degenerative disease, such as Alzheimer's or Parkinson's disease, for example, should that person not be given the opportunity to indicate in advance, like a kind of living will, what their intentions are regarding how to move forward when they might no longer be able to make an informed choice?

I must say, I am pleased that the government decided to introduce this legislation, because, let's admit it, the previous one was too restrictive and some people think that even this one is too restrictive. Perhaps we should start thinking about expanding it even further, as the Government of Quebec is doing with its legislation.

[Lenore Zann, Liberal, Cumberland—Colchester, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank our hon. colleague for his passionate speech. I found it informative and extremely emotional. As somebody who was brought up as a Catholic as a young girl, I too feel people should have their own choice as to how they end their life if they are in great pain and suffering.

What would my hon. colleague say to our colleagues on the floor who are having trouble with this bill because their constituents have said it could be used the wrong way to perhaps put people to death who are having some kind of problem? What would he say to those people so they see his perspective?

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Montarville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, again, I think that is an extremely legitimate concern.

We cannot allow people to be euthanized based on a consent that might not reflect their true intentions. That is why it is so important to bring in parameters and safeguards that allow us to be sure of the person's consent.

Once informed consent is clearly expressed, whether in advance, as I mentioned a few moments ago, or in the present-time situation, I believe we must respect it. I believe this is a legitimate concern and we need these parameters to help us be certain of the informed consent of the person choosing to end their life.

[Taylor Bachrach, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague for his articulate and passionate speech. I only wish that my French was better so I could hear its full impact. His words about the duty not to judge but to support and honour people's choices had a particular impact.

I had the honour recently to sit with some constituents, and I heard their deeply held concerns about medical assistance in dying. While my party and I support the bill, I wonder sometimes when speaking with these individuals whether at the heart of this is an unreconcilable conflict between beliefs and perspectives when it comes to the end of life.

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Montarville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I sincerely believe that, in most cases, apart from the legal arguments, people's reservations about this issue and their resistance to the idea stem from moral arguments. That is why it was so important to me to express my point of view, however humbly among my fellow MPs, which is that I support MAID for moral and even religious reasons, just as I support abortion and same-sex marriage.

I understand why people who oppose MAID for moral reasons have those reservations. They truly believe it is a sin, but that sin, if it really is a sin, is on the part of the individual, who must bear responsibility for it when brought before their Creator. It is not society's or the community's sin; we are not responsible for the choices of others. Each person must take responsibility for their own choices.

[Tamara Jansen, Conservative, Cloverdale—Langley City, BC]

Mr. Speaker, today I am pleased to present my maiden speech to advocate on behalf of those who cannot advocate for themselves. It is truly a privilege to be a voice for them. Some of them will even be voices from beyond the grave.

I call on my colleagues today to truly stop a moment and hear the cri de coeur from those who are still among us and from those calling to use from the next life. They should take a moment to listen to what we here in the House have done to destroy the value of their lives, to exclude them from society and to encourage them to exit the stage rather than wait for the curtain to fall once the final act is finished.

I will begin by introducing members to Roger Foley. As a young man, Roger was a musician and creator. He loved life, and it showed. However, in his early thirties, Roger was diagnosed with cerebellar ataxia, a debilitating disease that has stolen away his physical abilities one function at a time. Roger is now completely reliant on care providers for every necessity of life.

In the summer of 2018, after almost dying from a life-threatening case of food poisoning he contracted in long-term care, Roger was trying desperately to access funding for patient-directed care to hire and train his own consistent caregiver in his own home, as opposed to living in a hospital or in long-term care with rotating staff who do not understand his specific care needs. Members may remember Roger as the man who recorded his caregivers offering him euthanasia as an easy way out of his suffering. As we heard in the recording, the nurse says, “You don’t have to do it in some dramatic manner. You can apply for assisted—you know.” The nurse could not even bring himself to utter the word “euthanasia”, yet there he was, against Canadian law and all moral and ethical standards, offering a desperate man an easy way out. It was problem solved. However, Roger is a fighter, and even though he was overwhelmingly desperate, Roger decided he wanted to fight this injustice on behalf of himself and all our vulnerable brothers and sisters.

Roger's path intersected with mine early this year at the beginning of my time on the health committee. In preparation for a study on palliative care in Canada and a review of the euthanasia regime, issues that I thought would soon be on the table for discussion, I reached out to him and his lawyer for his perspective as someone within the system. I finally had a chance to speak via telephone with Roger while he was in Victoria Hospital in a private ward getting good care. While not in his preferred setting of his own home, I found him to be very open and engaging. His knowledge of the issue of euthanasia and the danger it posed for the vulnerable was enlightening. Just before we hung up that night, I said to Roger, “I wish you were on the committee because you are so much more equipped to speak to this issue than I am,” and we agreed to speak again soon.

Then COVID-19 hit, and Roger Foley's world changed completely. Roger was repeatedly transferred between units where there was little room for lift equipment and insufficient staffing for his specialized care. Living at the mercy of care attendants who are pressed for time was agonizingly difficult. Roger has very little in his life that is in his own control, but one thing he can do is swallow when offered food, with a certain technique. His head needs to be tipped at just the right angle, and the spoon needs to be offered in just the right way. For Roger, the ability to swallow affords him a feeling of independence. It may seem like a little thing to us, but to Roger it means a whole lot.

When the hospital wanted to feed him with a feeding tube to minimize the care hours required, his mental health took a turn for the worse. On May 15, Roger's brother filed a complaint with the ombudsman on Roger's behalf, yet things just got worse. Roger was suddenly informed that he would be transferred to the long-term care facility that had led to his original food poisoning and hospitalization. Understandably, Roger refused the transfer, begging instead, if not allowed self-directed care, to go back to his original unit, where staff knew him and his needs well. The hospital ignored his request, insisting that it was not safe for him because of COVID and that he needed to transfer.

The night before the transfer was to take place, Roger became completely desperate. He had not been sleeping, due to his fear and anxiety of being transferred. He became so distressed that he told his caregivers that he would throw himself off the gurney if they tried to transfer him the following morning. With no hope of help in sight, Roger reached out to his brother. His brother reached out to his lawyer. His lawyer reached out to me.

That evening we spent three hours on a conference call with Roger, encouraging him to be positive, to keep up the faith and to stay the course on behalf of those in the disabled community who would not have his strength and courage. All the while, I was attempting to contact the hospital administrators on another phone to beg them to back down and to warn them that Roger was possibly suicidal and needed them to reconsider for his mental health's sake.

Suddenly, I could hear on the phone in the room with Roger a new voice. The voice introduced herself as the hospital's mental health personnel, there to administer the 10-question suicide checklist on Roger. She began with her first question, attempting to gauge his distress level. Roger told her that he had no intention of answering her questions, since it was her and her bosses' fault he was in so much distress. She tried over and over, and he refused until she finally left the room in a huff.

The House heard me right; the mental health professional was so annoyed that Roger refused to answer her suicide checklist, she left the room and never returned. I was absolutely dumbfounded on the other side of the line, sitting helpless in my office in Langley. All these able-bodied health care professionals were able to leave the room freely. Everyone could could leave as they pleased, except Roger. Roger was trapped.

When we finally got some assurances that a trusted doctor would come and talk to Roger, and it encouraged him to try to rest, I hung up the phone, I had no idea what was going to happen in the morning. I was helpless, but not nearly as helpless as Roger. I can tell members that it was with great relief in the morning that Roger had indeed received an intervention through a trusted doctor and was getting proper care and nutrition. However, this event was a life changer for me. It dawned on me that without the help of his lawyer, who stayed on the phone with us the entire time, Roger's story may have ended quite differently. I wondered how many others in the country are at risk under this new MAID regime. How many vulnerable disabled are offered euthanasia when they are at their weakest? I made it my mission to find out.

What did I find out? I found out that Roger's case is by no means an isolated case. We can see this sort of abuse happening across the country. Take, for example, Jonathan Marchand: 43 years old, suffering from muscular dystrophy and living confined to bed in a nursing home in Quebec. He produced a video from his hospital room which he released on YouTube in response to living in long-term care during the pandemic. Jonathan states “Increasingly, euthanasia is offered as a solution to institutionalization. The idea is if you don't want to go into a long-term facility and die a slow death, then we are going to help you kill yourself. And those ideas are based on false assumptions about people with disabilities - like our lives are not worth living, that it's better to be dead than to have a disability - but it's not true!” He says that he decided that he would not go ahead with euthanasia, but would fight to get out of that place. Jonathan said, “In a world where there will be no empathy for people who need more help, it would be terrible. It would be something out of the nightmare of the Third Reich.”

Bill C-7 is an absolute nightmare that is facing disabled Canadians. Many are already afraid to go to hospital for fear they will be treated differently from the able-bodied. With the implementation of MAID in 2015, the community braced itself for the slippery slope ahead. Everyone said they were just overreacting. They said that safeguards were in place and euthanasia was meant to be safe and rare. We jump to 2020, and here we are racing down the hill at breakneck speed. In consultation with the disabled community, they have expressed firm opposition to this bill.

They explain that with the wording of Bill C-7, the Liberal government is proposing to set up two lines. Line one is for the able-bodied, who, in times of extreme distress, will be offered suicide prevention. Line two is for the disabled, who, in moments of weakness that they all endure as life ebbs and flows, will be offered assisted suicide, because their lives are not worth living, they are told. Add to all that the fact that current safeguards have already been proven completely ineffective. There is a complete lack of accountability structures to ensure abuses do not occur, and yet we are being asked to loosen restrictions even more. Where is the palliative care that was promised? Where is the review that was supposed to have happened? What are the Liberals afraid of finding out? Is it that in actual fact MAID has led to coercive deaths across our country, which go on undetected daily?

I stand here on behalf of all those who cry out for compassion and dignity as they travel a very tough road filled with complex care needs and physical ailments that require far more from us as a society. I stand here as the voice of Roger in Toronto, Jonathan in Quebec, Raymond Bourbonnais, Candice Lewis, Sean Tagert, Archie Rolland and so many more who we may never know.

“Lean on me.” That is what I want all of us to say here in this House—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

We are unfortunately out of time.

Questions and comments, the hon. parliamentary secretary.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Queen’s Privy Council for Canada and to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the member sharing her thoughts and in particular highlighting some individuals. Part of this debate, from its origins five or six years ago, was the citations from real people about what is happening in their lives. We have looked at those as well as the court decisions that have taken place, and listened to the literally thousands of Canadians throughout the country who have had the opportunity to participate and provide information. We are talking about hundreds of thousands of Canadians who have provided input.

I believe the legislation before us is fairly good, in that it puts us in a place where the bill can be sent to committee and the member can hopefully get some of her concerns addressed. I am wondering if the member supports the bill being sent to committee, at the very least, to hear some others' thoughts and maybe get some of her questions answered.

[Tamara Jansen, Conservative, Cloverdale—Langley City, BC]

Madam Speaker, a recent statement was penned and signed by over 800 physicians in Canada in response to Bill C-7. Only 25 people are required to sign a petition for it to be recognized, so when a document is presented with 800 signatures from experts in a relevant field, the House should pay close attention to what that document says. Let me read—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

My apologies to the hon. member, but the time is up.

It being 5:30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.

[Bob Saroya, Conservative, Markham—Unionville, ON]

moved that Bill C-238, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (possession of unlawfully imported firearms), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Madam Speaker, today, it is my pleasure to rise to introduce Bill C-238, an act to amend the Criminal Code, regarding the possession of unlawfully imported firearms. This bill would help make my community of Markham and communities across the country safer places to live. The bill would do that by increasing the mandatory minimum prison time for criminals in known possession of a smuggled gun. It would also make criminals charged with this crime less likely to be released on bail.

To understand the bill, members need to know how community safety in the GTA has changed over the years. That history is something I know very well.

Like many immigrants, I came to Canada and settled in Toronto as a young man. Back in the seventies, I lived in a rooming house in downtown Toronto with five other tenants and the landlady. My rent was $10 per week and no key was ever issued for the front door, since the door was always left open. There was no crime around my area, and no one was afraid to walk alone at any time of the night. However, over time, Toronto developed some problem areas.

Many years later, I owned several businesses, and some of them were in the most difficult part of town. I was always afraid for the safety of my staff and my customers. Police regularly came to download the security video from my business, since there were many crimes committed in the area.

This is one of the reasons I got involved with politics. I know what it is like to lose sleep over crime concerns. I want all Canadians to feel safe in their community. That is why I am always talking about safety and security.

As time went on, even the bad parts of Toronto felt safer. People worried less about their kids walking home at night and whether they remembered to lock their doors. I would proudly tell people that Toronto was one of the safest major cities in the world.

Over the past five years, that has changed. Gun crime has risen to new highs year after year. What once felt like a safe city no longer feels that way. Shootings are happening almost daily. Even with multiple lockdowns in Ontario this year, there were reports of nearly daily shootings, each more horrible than the last. It is easy to see this trend by following the news. In 2018, the headlines, day after day, were about horrific shootings. It was a record year for shooting deaths. In 2019, there were even more shootings. Things are not getting better.

Speaking to my constituents only confirmed what I believed about gun crime. When I go door to door, people tell me that they are afraid. I hear stories of gunshots close to parks where children play. The stories I heard last October, before COVID struck, are the same as what I am hearing now.

I will read some more recent headlines from our local paper. On June 21, it says, “York police investigate incident of gunshots fired at Markham residence”. On June 28, it says, “Man found dead behind wheel after shooting, crash in Markham”. On September 11, it says, “Police investigate several incidents of gunshots fired in Markham as 'possibly connected'”. On October 23, it says, “Second man arrested after shooting in Markham”.

The statistics published in the 2019 York Regional Police “Statistical Report” point to a growing problem in York Region. There are similar headlines from the rest of the GTA and across Canada. When I talk with MPs of all stripes, they are on the same page. I think it is very clear that the problem of gun crime is not getting better, and that needs to change.

Last year, I met with community leaders and law enforcement. I asked them what concrete steps the federal government needed to take to make the community safer. The thing I heard over and over at these meetings was that organized crime was behind the shootings, and the streets are flooded with guns smuggled from across the border. Mostly they are handguns because they are easy to smuggle, hide and carry. That should not be shocking news to anyone. Our farmers, hunters and sports shooters are not fuelling a crime wave. The shootings are gang-related, with innocent people getting caught in the crossfire.

The former head of the Toronto Police, my friend Chief Saunders, said last year, “Gun violence is getting worse, there is more access to firearms”. He also said that his sources show 82% of the guns picked up by police in Toronto are smuggled into the country.

Ontario’s Solicitor General, Sylvia Jones, has said that provincial numbers show that 84% of the guns used in crime are being smuggled into the country. She has said, “We need to actually crack down on that because that ultimately will keep our community safer.”

It makes sense. Canada shares the longest undefended border in the world with the United States, and in the United States it is very easy to purchase a gun. Smuggling guns is good business.

Let me quote directly from a CBC article. Superintendent Jason Crowley, with the Windsor police department, says that the appeal of smuggling guns is pure economics. He says, “You will see a gun, a firearm purchased in the States for potentially $200 to $300, and they'll go on the streets [in Canada] for $3,000.”

That is a return on investment that is hard to beat, but it gets worse. The industry is so profitable that criminals are even renting these guns. Why sell it for $3,000, when they can rent out the same gun for $2,000, multiple times?

I know that some members on the other side of the House may bring slightly different figures to this debate. However, I want to focus on the fact that smuggled guns are being used regularly in the GTA and across Canada. Many of the bullet wounds that send people to the hospital and the morgue come from smuggled guns.

The problem is deeper than just the guns. When the police catch the criminals using these guns, they end up right back on the street, sometimes within hours. While I know that some people may be concerned about criminals' rights, I want to be clear that criminals do not have the right to terrorize their community. When dangerous people are arrested for shootings and they return to the community within a day, there is a strong message to the community. That message is that people cannot depend on the justice system to keep them safe.

This is not an exaggeration. When I spoke to the police about this, they said it was a problem. Just having someone in jail for a couple of days can help them cool down and put a pause on the cycle of violence. They are not alone in this.

The Premier of Ontario has said, “somebody gets arrested on a Friday night and they get bail and are back out on Wednesday for retribution. That’s absolutely unacceptable”. Ontario municipal leaders, including the mayor of Toronto, are calling for tougher bail for those accused of gun-related offences and longer sentences for those convicted. There are too many stories of dangerous criminals receiving bail only to commit more crimes within hours.

My private member's bill would help tackle both smuggled guns and dangerous criminals on bail. As members may know, possession of an unauthorized firearm that was obtained in crime is covered by section 96 of the Criminal Code. The punishment is one to 10 years, or a summary conviction. That does not go far enough. My bill will distinguish known possession of a smuggled firearm as a more serious offence.

This offence would come with three to 14 years in prison on the first conviction and five to 14 on the second and subsequent convictions. This charge is comparable to the prison time for illegal firearm importing and exporting.

Possession of a smuggled firearm is a serious crime. That is why people charged with this new offence would face reverse onus bail, which requires criminals to tell a judge why they should be let back into the community on bail. This type of bail is already in the Criminal Code for multiple crimes such as hostage-taking, armed robbery or extortion with a firearm. This bill would make sure the punishment fits the crime of carrying around a smuggled gun.

I know there are some concerns with respect to my bill. Normally, with legislation on firearms, people are concerned about the unintended effects: that, instead of the law cracking down on criminals, it would be used to punish hunters who file paperwork a little too late. We have seen this before in the long-gun registry, which cost about a billion dollars but did not seem to make anyone safer. This bill would avoid that. It is only focused on weapons that are smuggled and on known possession.

I know other members will be concerned about mandatory minimums. They believe that taking the decision out of the hands of a judge is wrong and is a question of human rights. Some might consider three years in prison to be cruel and unusual punishment, especially for a first offence. I disagree. People in known possession of a smuggled gun have the gun for a reason. Even someone who hands off a smuggled gun is putting the safety of the community at risk. At worst, they are assisting with a shooting or a murder. I think members need to focus on how criminals are driving away jobs in our own communities. Some of these criminals may be able to turn their lives around, but that will not happen without serious consequences for their actions. Dangerous criminals learn nothing when we slap them on the wrist for terrible crimes. When they are in prison, I am happy to support programs that can give them a better future. Recent attempts by the Liberal government have not been able to get at the root of the problem. This bill strikes at the people who we know for a fact are criminals.

This bill is one of many steps that need to be taken to make my constituents, and millions of other Canadians, a bit safer. I urge all MPs to vote for this legislation and to continue to do the work needed to make Canada an even safer place to raise a family.

If members have any questions about the legislation, we can iron it out at committee.

[Adam Vaughan, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Families]

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member across the way for this bill. Regarding the smuggling of handguns in particular, the cost in my riding is beyond description. It is not just members getting caught in the crossfire: the ricochets impact communities right across the GTA and across the country, so I am pleased to stand and speak to this. I look forward to supporting it personally, even if my party does not. I promise that. We have to stop the illegal importation of handguns into this country, and we have to do it as quickly as we can.

My question for the member is whether he has secured a guarantee from his party that an amendment that was made to Bill C-71 will not resurface, which is the “Oops, I forgot I had a gun” excuse. There was an amendment moved by the Conservatives in the previous Parliament on Bill C-71 that said if people forgot to declare their handgun they could simply say they forgot it was in the trunk and get off, which was a loophole so big it would have killed kids right across the country. It was so silly I cannot believe it was even proposed.

Can he assure me that amendment will never see the light of day, and the Conservative Party will back away from the “Oops, I forgot” smuggling amendment?

[Bob Saroya, Conservative, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member is absolutely right. I will work on it at my end. This is a huge problem in the GTA and the major cities. In the last five years in Toronto alone, the member's part of the world, there were 2,415 registered shootings, over 1,000 injuries and 236 deaths. This was in Toronto alone. We need to work on it. In some parts of the world people may not understand it.

If I have the time, I have a quick report from the Canadian Police Association, which states: “The front-line police have first-hand experience in dealing with the consequences of increasing gun violence in our communities and smuggled weapons are significantly the source of that violence. Bill C-238—”

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

I would like to give members the opportunity to ask questions.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Edmonton Manning.

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Madam Speaker, the bill addresses a very important issue: the security and safety of Canadians, especially in major cities. I hear this from across the aisle too. We know arms smuggling is a big problem here because we have such large borders, and we know it is happening every day.

How is the member's bill going to address the safety and security of Canadians, especially in major cities?

[Bob Saroya, Conservative, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Madam Speaker, there are many issues, and organized crime is one of them. We need to clamp down on these issues for the safety and security of Canadians.

I want to read something from the Canadian Police Association. “Front-line police have first-hand experience in dealing with the consequences of increasing gun violence in our communities, and smuggled weapons are a significant source of that violence. Bill C-238 presents a common sense solution that will strengthen penalties for those who are knowingly bringing these illegal—”

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

The hon. member for St. John's East has the floor.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

Madam Speaker, the smuggling does not occur in Toronto, of course, and we are opposed to these handguns getting loose. What about the border itself? What efforts does the member propose to actually stop smuggling at the border? The Conservative government got rid of over a thousand border guards when it was in power.