House of Commons Hansard #373 of the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was going.

Topics

Public Safety and National SecurityCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

11 a.m.

NDP

Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON

Madam Speaker, I agree with my colleague that we are wasting a lot of time in the House.

I asked him a question the other day about the international war crimes in Gaza and what the government is going to do. This morning, the ICC indicted Benjamin Netanyahu and Yoav Gallant for war crimes against humanity. Canada played a huge role in Rwanda with Roméo Dallaire and the war crimes there, and also in Srebrenica and Serbia, but now we are seeing nothing from the government.

Now that international war crime indictments are being brought against Benjamin Netanyahu, what will the government do? Will they support full sanctions? Will they support the International Criminal Court? Will they ensure we bring these criminals to the Hague?

Public Safety and National SecurityCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

11:05 a.m.

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB

Madam Speaker, as I indicated when I originally answered the question, I have absolute and full confidence in the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the fantastic work she has done working with our allied countries and being aware of what is happening around the world. I fully support the actions the government has taken to date. I think it is important that Canada and the government continue to monitor the situation and work with our allied, like-minded countries to ensure we move forward.

Public Safety and National SecurityCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

November 21st, 2024 / 11:05 a.m.

Oakville North—Burlington Ontario

Liberal

Pam Damoff LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs (Consular Affairs)

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to be here today to contribute to this debate on the concurrence of a guns and gangs study that I was pleased to be part of at the public safety committee.

I am reflecting back on how, since just two years ago, times have changed. That study, which was on something that could have been quite controversial, ended up being one for which we had agreement amongst the members of the committee. We produced a report that the Conservatives actually agreed with when we tabled the report.

I find it surprising now that, here we are, two years later, and we have rhetoric and nonsense coming from the Conservative Party of Canada on a report that I am really proud of. At the time, I think that all of the members were very proud of it, especially of the way we were able to come together on an issue that is impacting our communities. Young people are joining gangs because of poverty and addiction. We know, and the report reflected this, that investments in communities can make a difference for these young people in whether or not they end up in the criminal justice system.

I am really disappointed that, once again, the Conservatives are trying to derail our current studies at the public safety committee. We are studying India and foreign interference, through which a Canadian was killed on Canadian soil, as well as Tenet Media and Russia's influence on misinformation in our country. This is something the Conservatives have tried to do repeatedly during both those studies. Today, they are trying to derail those two studies again. Twice we have had Conservatives move motions, once when we had the social media companies in to testify on Russia and once when we had national security experts there, and they were moving motions on completely unrelated topics.

These are issues that are impacting Canadians' lives. It seems like the Conservatives, much like their leader, who refuses to get the security clearance necessary to review, do not really want to study foreign interference. They make a big deal about having an interest in it, but they really do not.

There is a lot of revisionist thinking going on in this place as well. Bill C-83 passed, and I was proud to be part of the committee when we passed that bill, but the Conservatives keep referring to how the Liberal government brought in the least restrictive measures. It is funny that, when that bill went through committee, Conservatives did not oppose that clause, which was introduced by the NDP. Conservatives did not oppose the least restrictive clause on Bill C-83 when it went through committee.

However, now, with the revisionist history that has happened over the years, the Conservatives seem to think that they did. Perhaps they want to go back to just check the record of when that bill passed.

I am reading a book right now called Indictment by Benjamin Perrin. He was the man who shaped Stephen Harper's tough on crime policies as a special adviser and legal counsel to the prime minister. I want to read a quote from his book. He said, “In fact, I’d like to officially replace the term ‘tough on crime’ with ‘stupid on crime.’ It doesn't work. It makes us less safe, while costing a ton of taxpayers money.” To paraphrase former prime minister Harper's top guy on crime, he is saying tough on crime is tough on taxpayers and stupid on crime.

The Conservatives like to talk about how they want to keep Canadians safe, yet, time and time again, they have opposed smart gun control measures when we have brought them through the House. In Bill C-71, there was a clause that ensured that firearms would be forfeited to the Crown in cases of domestic violence.

I had a friend whose husband was abusing her, and he was a firearms owner. When she went to court, the judge said that he had to give up his guns. Do members know where those guns went? They went to his brother because there was no requirement at the time that those guns be forfeited to the Crown. My friend lived in fear because she knew that her husband knew where those guns were. We changed that through Bill C-71, something the Conservatives have said they are going to repeal. If my friend were to go to court today, those guns would go to the Crown, not to her husband's brother.

In Bill C-21, we put in three clauses to make women safer: subsection 6.1, which would make an individual ineligible to hold a firearms licence if they are subject to a protection order or have been convicted of an offence involving violence; subsection 70.1, which would oblige a chief firearms officer who has reasonable grounds to suspect that a licensee may have engaged in domestic violence or stalking to revoke the licence within 24 hours; and subsection 70.2, which would automatically revoke the licence of an individual who becomes subject to a protection order and requires them to deliver the guns to a peace officer within 24 hours.

In my opinion, that keeps Canadian women safer. It is unfortunate that the party opposite wants to revoke Bill C-21, which includes those provisions. It also includes provisions around assault-style weapons, something that was used at Polytechnique Montréal, and that anniversary is coming up on December 6. The Conservative Party still refuses to acknowledge that the individual who killed those women on that day was a legal gun owner at the time, much like the person who went into the Quebec City mosque and killed and injured people.

When we were studying Bill C-21, Blaine Calkins showed up in committee. Sorry, the member for Red Deer—Lacombe

Public Safety and National SecurityCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

11:10 a.m.

Conservative

Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON

Madam Speaker, on a point of order, the hon. member referred to an hon. colleague by their personal name as opposed to the name of their riding, which we do not do here.

Public Safety and National SecurityCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

11:10 a.m.

NDP

The Assistant Deputy Speaker NDP Carol Hughes

I am sorry, but I did not hear that. Unfortunately, I was having a side conversation with the Clerk to clarify something.

The hon. member just withdrew and recognized that she should not have done that. I would remind members not to use the first or last names of parliamentarians.

The hon. parliamentary secretary.

Public Safety and National SecurityCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

11:10 a.m.

Liberal

Pam Damoff Liberal Oakville North—Burlington, ON

Madam Speaker, the member for Red Deer—Lacombe, during the committee meeting, claimed that I equated hunters with the Danforth shooter, which is not what happened.

We had passed a clause unanimously, including with the support of the Conservative Party of Canada, to require a firearms licence to buy magazines. The hon. member spoke at committee to say that people travel 200 to 300 miles and pay between $5,000 and $20,000 to go on an elk hunt. If their magazine was not working, we were going to prevent them from going into town, buying a new magazine and going out to shoot that elk. Well, if they do not have their licence with them, then they are not supposed to even be using their firearm. Not only that, which I brought up to the hon. member, but Reese Fallon, who was killed on the Danforth, did not have a choice. If we had had that clause in effect, maybe that shooter would not have been able to go and get a magazine without a licence.

Conservatives like to talk about bail, but they forget to mention who is responsible for the administration of justice, and that is the province. I am going to talk about Ontario and my community of Halton region.

In 2017, a new courthouse was announced for Halton region. Construction was supposed to start in 2019, and it was supposed to be completed a year ago. Right now, the courthouse in Halton region is full of mould and asbestos. Juror interviews are being done in the cafeteria because there is no place to do the interviews. Things are not passing through those courts, and people are getting out because the court system and the province cancelled that courthouse. As soon as it was elected, the Ford government cancelled it. The provincial jails are triple-bunked, so judges do not want to send offenders to jail. We need to be working together on this, and the Province of Ontario needs to step up.

I would like to move an amendment to the amendment:

That the amendment be amended by replacing the words:

a) “Tuesday, December 17, 2024” with the words “Monday, February 24, 2025”; and

b) “Friday, February 28, 2025” with the words “Monday, March 31, 2025”.

Public Safety and National SecurityCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

11:15 a.m.

NDP

The Assistant Deputy Speaker NDP Carol Hughes

The subamendment is in order.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia.

Public Safety and National SecurityCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

11:15 a.m.

Bloc

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

Madam Speaker, my colleague and I worked very hard on the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security to make Bill C-21 a good bill.

This bill had a huge number of regulatory measures that were to come later, and we placed out trust in the government when we passed it. We hoped that the government would quickly adopt the regulations needed to make the bill strict enough. Unfortunately, that is not really what happened.

We passed the bill and are still awaiting several regulations, namely those that could protect women against domestic violence, as well as those relating to the assault-type weapons still on the market, which can still be found in homes and in the streets.

The government wants to move forward with the firearms buyback program. However, it is easy for a citizen with a prohibited weapon to sell it to the government, take the money and go buy another one. Why is it that there is still no advisory committee in place to determine what to do with these weapons?

Public Safety and National SecurityCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

11:15 a.m.

Liberal

Pam Damoff Liberal Oakville North—Burlington, ON

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for her question. She is someone I have had the privilege of working closely with on this issue. I know we would not have been able to do what we have done on gun control without her support and assistance.

I want to assure the member that all of the things she mentioned remain a priority for the government. I continue to push the government to get these regulations put in place as quickly as possible and to ensure we are moving forward on all of the things we promised in Bill C-21.

Public Safety and National SecurityCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

11:15 a.m.

NDP

Laurel Collins NDP Victoria, BC

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the member for her speech, as well as for all of her work standing up for women and the protection of children, both here in Canada and around the world.

I want to ask her to respond to some of the comments her colleague made in this debate. The member mentioned he has the full support of the Minister of Foreign Affairs. This morning, the International Criminal Court said Benjamin Netanyahu and his former minister of defence are being called as war criminals. Canada has played an important role in the past when it comes to bringing war criminals to The Hague to face trial.

I would like to know if this member and the Liberal government are going to stand up for human rights and for international law? Will they respect the ruling and play a role in ensuring we see justice here in Canada and around the world?

Public Safety and National SecurityCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

11:20 a.m.

Liberal

Pam Damoff Liberal Oakville North—Burlington, ON

Madam Speaker, like my colleague, I also have confidence in the Minister of Foreign Affairs. As the hon. member knows, I am one of her parliamentary secretaries.

The situation in Gaza is absolutely horrific and we know a diplomatic solution is one that is going to resolve the issues that are happening there. The ruling just came out this morning and I know we will be reviewing it.

Public Safety and National SecurityCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

11:20 a.m.

Conservative

Raquel Dancho Conservative Kildonan—St. Paul, MB

Madam Speaker, I have a question about this concerning subamendment moved to our amendment on this issue of debate today. Our amendment is calling on the public safety and national security committee, which the member and I are both part of, to review in detail the situation of crime and bail going on in this country, given what we are seeing day in and day out in the headlines about violent crime committed by those out on bail.

I have concerns because the member's subamendment, in essence, pushes off the responsibility of committee to look into the violent crime surge we are seeing, and I am just not understanding why she does not value the public safety committee studying this right away. I know we have a lot of priorities. There are a lot of competing important priorities at committee, but surely, given what we are seeing, to push this off by months is, frankly, not responsible.

Public Safety and National SecurityCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

11:20 a.m.

Liberal

Pam Damoff Liberal Oakville North—Burlington, ON

Madam Speaker, I find that quite rich. We are studying foreign interference by Russia and India. The hon. member wants to do a study on violence against women and the rise in crime. The National Police Federation, the RCMP union, has come out and talked about the provinces and territories needing more resources, that all governments should invest in community bail enforcement and that “jurisdictions using [a justice of the peace] to preside at bail hearings should establish a standard qualification...which [is] based on education and legal background”.

My goodness, Ontario is appointing JPs who do not have a legal background. Is it any wonder those JPs are not making decisions that are in the best interests of citizens?

Public Safety and National SecurityCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

11:20 a.m.

Bloc

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

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to rise today to talk about this issue, although we discussed the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security's report years ago. It was when the Bloc Québécois proposed to discuss the increase in gun violence. At the time, gun crimes were being committed in broad daylight next to day care centres in cities like Montreal. There had been a shooting in a library. In short, a lot of events led us to determine that we needed to talk about the issue with some urgency. The parties worked really well together to have the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security conduct a study on the matter.

We then did an exhaustive study in committee, and a report containing 34 recommendations was released in April 2022. That was a few years ago, when the Hon. Jim Carr was chair of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security. We salute him. We miss him. All that to say that, rereading the various recommendations this morning, I was disappointed to realize that most of them, although the report was published in 2022 and a major firearms act has since been passed, were never implemented by the government. That is really too bad.

I welcome the opportunity that we have today to once again talk about the Conservatives' idea, because it still seems to be a hot topic. There has not been much of a decline in violent gun crime in recent years, at least not since this report was tabled, so it is a good idea to talk more about this issue and to put more pressure on the government to do something about it.

Earlier, I mentioned to the parliamentary secretary that Bill C-21 was indeed a step in the right direction, but that there are a lot of regulations attached to it that have not yet been finalized, even though these are important regulations that could have a positive impact on people's lives, especially the lives of women who are victims of domestic violence. Red flag and yellow flag provisions can provide better protection for these women. It is important to put these measures in pace. We worked hard in committee to create these measures, but they have not yet been implemented.

It is the same thing with all these models of firearms that are still available on the market. People still own assault-type firearms, and they are still in circulation, even though the government banned many of them a few years ago. Some models are extremely similar. As I was saying to my colleague earlier, it does not make sense to me to set up a gun buyback program when people who own a gun on the banned list can hand it over to the government, take the money in return and go out and buy another gun that is basically the same. Why set up a buyback program if that is what is going to happen?

Let us go with a complete ban. Let us sort out the guns that could be used for hunting, because some of the firearms that we identified during the study of Bill C‑21 might be used for hunting. What we proposed to the government at the time was to set up an advisory committee. Why should this be a political decision? We suggested leaving it to neutral experts from all fields to study the matter. We were talking about nearly 500 models that are still out there, and maybe a dozen models that could be used for hunting. We were saying that we should ask these experts to provide recommendations to the government so that the government could then act on them, and that this would then be an opportunity to set up a more serious buyback program instead of taking taxpayers' money just to allow someone to go out and buy a different model.

I will come back to this in more detail, but I also want to talk about the list of 34 recommendations adopted in April 2022. I have to say that we worked well together in committee, and it is quite rare to get unanimity on any topic at the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security.

It was nice to see all the parties agree that the government should do more to make progress on the firearms violence file. The committee made very good recommendations. I will mention a few of them.

In particular, we wanted to improve data collection about firearms smuggling. This is a very big report. It discusses legislative changes concerning assault-type weapons, as well as illegal firearms trafficking at the border. In particular, it mentions the border crossing at Akwesasne and the collaborative efforts between the various police forces. It also deals extensively with the tracing of firearms and the training of law enforcement officials in this area. In particular, it recommends ongoing training for RCMP officers. Many of the recommendations in the report relate to tracing.

We wanted the Government of Canada to make an effort to divert young people away from gang culture. That is very important. We need to implement preventive measures to reach young people, often from disadvantaged communities, who might be attracted by criminal gangs and commit crimes. It is all related. When we talk about firearms trafficking, about gun violence, we can assume that it is related to drug trafficking, human trafficking or even auto theft. We also discussed that aspect extensively. These are criminal activities that finance other criminal activities, including firearms trafficking. We asked the government to do more to prevent this type of criminal activity. In particular, we asked the government to broaden the national crime prevention strategy by adding more measures. We also asked that it hold a national gun and gang summit in Ottawa. That has not happened, despite the fact that it was recommended in 2022.

Take auto theft, for example. A few months ago, when I raised the issue in the House of Commons, the Conservatives were on board because it is a widespread phenomenon, particularly in Montreal and Toronto. The government wanted to act quickly and launched a national summit on auto theft, which appears to have yielded results. I visited the port of Montreal and the Canada Border Services Agency site nearby. We saw that the police, Équité Association and the Canada Border Services Agency were working together to search containers. We saw how it all works.

Sometimes when we raise issues in the House of Commons, we think it might have an impact on real life. It is interesting. I figure that, if it works for auto theft, why would it not work for gun violence and gangs? A national summit is always a timely idea, and it allows everyone to sit at the same table and talk about what to do next. That is still a useful recommendation that can be implemented any time with little expense. It is always good to establish communication between all the stakeholders.

We also asked the government to tackle the illegal drug trade. As I said earlier, there is still a connection to the opioid epidemic, which leads to things like gun violence and illegal tobacco sales. All these things are related. It is important to bulk up police resources to fight gang violence. People often talk about how important it is to have more officers who can do this work. It is the same with indigenous policing. I talked about the Akwesasne police earlier.

Indigenous police services have been seeking recognition as essential services for years now. They want more resources so they can do their job. I am not targeting that particular indigenous nation at all, but everyone knows this is a very strategic location between Quebec, Ontario and the United States where there is a lot of trafficking. Many people can intervene in that territory, but they have to work together, and they have to work with the Akwesasne police. The report called for enhanced funding and collaboration. Simply put, it called on the Government of Canada to give them the means to achieve their objective of taking action against trafficking in guns, drugs, tobacco and humans.

We see it with migrants who try to come in as part of an irregular arrival. Some have died trying to cross at this very spot. Increased control is really key.

The government was asked to “investigate the need for enhanced border surveillance of international commercial rail operations and ocean freight shipping operations.” The Bloc Québécois produced a supplementary report to this study. Our recommendation was to improve recommendation 19, by pointing out that it is not just a matter of investigating the need, which is quite broad, but rather of strengthening border surveillance.

Many, many, witnesses appeared before the committee. Several of them, including the president of the Customs and Immigration Union, told us that containers arriving by rail and ship are very poorly monitored. If someone can hide cars in there, they can certainly hide firearms. That is why there must be increased surveillance. We asked for that recommendation to be tightened up a little. That is why we included it in the Bloc Québécois supplementary report.

Recommendation 20 called on the government to “allocate additional human and financial resources to the Canada Border Services Agency”. It is a bit ironic, then, to see that hours of service are being reduced at 35 border crossings in Canada, including 10 in Quebec. The media reported it this week. Meanwhile, the President-elect of the United States, Mr. Trump, is threatening to deport millions of people. Understandably, these people may try to cross irregularly into Canada, because there is a loophole in the safe third country agreement that allows them to come to Canada. If they remain undetected for 14 days, they can make a refugee claim at a border crossing or on the Government of Canada's website, with a perfectly regular application.

In other words, people are being encouraged to break the law, enter Canada illegally and then submit a perfectly legal application to remain in Canada. Meanwhile, our integration capacity is already stretched to the limit. That is definitely the case in Quebec, and we are starting to hear other provinces say that it is getting difficult for them to properly receive these individuals as well.

We are telling the government that it needs to pay attention. We are hearing reports that the next U.S. government intends to deport millions of people, but we have no plan for the border. For years, we have been saying that there needs to be more staff, more human resources, but now the government is saying that it is going to reduce operating hours and staff numbers at certain border crossings, including strategic crossings at the Canada-U.S. border. It worries us a bit to hear that.

This morning, I had a meeting with the Minister of Public Safety and I raised this issue with him. If the staff are being reassigned, where are they going? Is the government planning to deploy them to another part of the border to prevent this scenario? I asked the minister that question in the House several times, and he said that everything was going well for now and that when a crisis does arise, it will be dealt with then. That is the problem with this government. Instead of anticipating problems and crises, it waits until the problem blows up in its face before taking action. It is always just a little too late. That is too bad. As far back as April 2022, when it released this report, the committee was already recommending that additional resources be allocated to the Canada Border Services Agency. That still has not been done. In any case, that is what the Customs and Immigration Union is telling us.

Recommendation 22 calls on the government to “develop a standardized schedule and definitions of prohibited firearms within the Criminal Code of Canada, with an emphasis on simplicity and consistency”.

The government decided to do the exact opposite with Bill C-21 by proposing an evergreen definition of prohibited firearms. It is difficult to explain what that means in lay terms, but it basically means that the government is prohibiting firearms that do not yet exist. Those that are already in circulation can remain in circulation, but new firearms that are created will be prohibited. As a result, manufacturers are deciding not to create firearms that meet those criteria. They are already getting around the law. In my opinion, this shows that the government's approach did not do much good.

We were forced to adopt that proposal because the previous one was even worse. The government proposed adding a list of just over 1,000 firearms to the Criminal Code. With an endless list of firearms, making changes to the Criminal Code would have been a total nightmare. Although there does not seem to be one perfect solution, that one was far from ideal. As I was saying, firearms that can be extremely dangerous, that can be used for malicious purposes, are being left in circulation.

We know there are law-abiding people out there. That needs to be said. For years, there have been gun owners who have done everything that was asked of them and who take good care of their firearms. They are not a problem for society. We always hear the argument that it is the illegal guns, criminals and street gangs that cause trouble, but the honest gun owners who pay the price. That said, when someone chooses to own a firearm, they have to be aware that there are regulations around gun ownership and that they have to be careful.

That is why I think it is always good to have regulations and laws for people who decide to keep an object in their home that is capable of taking someone's life. However, it is true that it may seem contradictory to leave the door open for criminals and gun traffickers and always go after law-abiding gun owners.

The government's approach was to lump them all together. Even though some of these weapons were used for hunting, the government included them in its bill to ban them. People told the committee that indigenous communities have used firearms like the SKS for hunting for years. Even though mass murders have been committed with SKS rifles, it does not necessarily follow that this weapon should be banned. That is why we asked the government to create an advisory committee with independent experts.

I remember that when I got home after Parliament rose in June 2023, I wrote an email to the Minister of Public Safety's team to recommend individuals and experts who could be part of the advisory committee. I was told that it was coming and that they would take my suggestions, so I was hoping it would come soon, but it has been radio silence since then. It has been a little over a year.

Members will recall that there was a cabinet shuffle about a month later, in July 2023. I understand that this can lead to delays, but nothing has happened to this day. Some groups are still sounding the alarm. In fact, I am meeting with PolyRemembers later today, and they say that they have only received half of all the things they were promised.

I want to come back to the infamous gun buyback program. It is a good idea, but if a person can sell their gun to the government and then buy another one that does exactly the same thing, the whole exercise was pointless, and taxpayers' money was spent for nothing. There is still a lot that needs to be done.

Earlier this week, the Police Association of Ontario wrote a letter to the Minister of Public Safety and the Minister of Justice. The leader of the Bloc Québécois received a copy. The letter mentions that a significant number of illegal guns are making their way into Canada. We need to look into that. So many gun-related issues remain to be addressed.

I like the new Minister of Public Safety. I trust him. The two of us have good conversations, but since he took office, it seems like things are not getting done. It is too bad, because we, the opposition, did our part in the parliamentary legislative process. Whatever we could do, we did. Now the ball is in the government's court. Addressing this issue will require regulatory measures that only the government can take, but the government is not budging. That is too bad, because the government was elected and re-elected on the promise of improving gun control. Soon it could lose power, and the issue will remain unresolved. It is too bad for the people who believed its promise, like women of PolyRemembers, who have been fighting for nearly 35 years now. They will not get to see these much-touted regulations take effect. It really is too bad.

Public Safety and National SecurityCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

11:40 a.m.

Winnipeg North Manitoba

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Madam Speaker, my colleague mentioned the member opposite's efforts in contributing to this whole issue, and I appreciate that. While I do not necessarily agree with everything, I appreciate many of the things she has put on the record.

The question I have for her is related to the Conservative Party using this two-year-old report to try to prevent the public safety committee from studying the issue of Russian and Indian foreign interference. There are all sorts of agenda items that could be before the public safety committee. Based on her experience, no doubt the issue we are talking about today will, in fact, come up with time.

On the issue of foreign interference, her leader did get the security clearance and only one leader has not and that leader has now instructed his caucus to prevent this study from taking place by moving the proposed amendment. Could she provide her thoughts on that?

Public Safety and National SecurityCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

11:40 a.m.

Bloc

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

Madam Speaker, it is abundantly clear that the Conservatives' intention is to hijack the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security's agenda, either with this motion or another one. Every time our committee meets, they move that we talk about something other than the two studies on the agenda, namely Russian disinformation in Canada and Indian interference or India-Canada relations. I am having a hard time understanding why the Conservative Party does not want to discuss these issues.

At the same time, it is becoming a partisan sideshow when it really should not be. Foreign interference is an extremely serious issue for our democratic institutions, particularly since an election is imminent. We do not want to go through the same thing as last time. I get the feeling that this is giving the Liberals the opportunity to repeat ad nauseam that the leader of the Conservative Party still does not have his security clearance. Unfortunately, the two parties are turning this into a partisan sideshow that I do not want to be a part of.

Public Safety and National SecurityCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

11:45 a.m.

Conservative

Jeremy Patzer Conservative Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK

Madam Speaker, earlier in the member's speech, she talked about CBSA and the borders. I had an Order Paper question recently with respect to what the Liberal government would do with borders. CBSA is in fact looking at changing the hours of service at multiple border crossings across the country. In particular, it is looking at the amount of cars crossing our borders.

If we look at the situation in rural Saskatchewan, rural Canada where our small towns are, that will be the first border crossing the government will be looking to make changes. It will also make it easier, in some cases, for gun smuggling and other nefarious activities to happen at these smaller crossings, simply because the government is going to be heavily focused on trying to shore up Windsor and some of the bigger crossings. However, it will be at the expense of the small rural crossings.

What does my colleague have to say about those kinds of changes?

Public Safety and National SecurityCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

11:45 a.m.

Bloc

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

Madam Speaker, I too wonder about the decision of the government or the Canada Border Services Agency to reduce hours.

What I was told this morning by the minister's office is that it is the United States that wants to reduce its operating hours, and Canada has to go along with it because the next administration is a little unpredictable. Canada does not want to upset it. That is the reason I was given. If Canada is giving in to all of the United States' demands, we have an interesting four years ahead of us.

There may be businesses in ridings with border crossings that will be penalized by this decision. Reducing operating hours penalizes individual and business travel.

It is troubling, especially at a time when we need more staff at the border and at border crossings.

Public Safety and National SecurityCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

11:45 a.m.

NDP

Laurel Collins NDP Victoria, BC

Madam Speaker, it is strange to hear that the Conservatives are worried about a reduction in hours at the border when a Conservative government cut 1,100 border security officers. Since then, we have been pushing the Liberal government to rehire them. It seems to have a lot of money when it comes to spending on the Trans Mountain pipeline, $35 billion; $18 billion in fossil fuel subsidies; hundreds of millions of dollars to consultants like McKinsey, but it cannot afford to invest in our border security to ensure illegal weapons do not come into Canada.

Public Safety and National SecurityCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

11:45 a.m.

Bloc

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

Madam Speaker, it is a little ironic to hear the NDP say that the government is spending too much money. This morning, we learned that the government will be spending $5 billion to make the NDP happy so it will not vote to topple the government. The $3 billion to help seniors between the ages of 65 and 74 was far too much, but $5 billion to secure the NDP's support is totally fine.

I hope that this measure will come with environmental demands from the NDP. We often hear NDP members criticize the government for not doing enough to combat climate change, but I never saw anything about the environment in any of the agreements between the government and the NDP.

I hope that is coming.

Public Safety and National SecurityCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

11:45 a.m.

Bloc

Andréanne Larouche Bloc Shefford, QC

Madam Speaker, as I listen to my colleague, I cannot decide which expression is more apt: “they are not walking the talk” or “it feels like Groundhog Day”. I want to pick up on my colleague from Victoria's comment about cuts to border services.

I worked as an assistant during the Conservative era a few years ago, and I remember fighting for the member I represented, who had border crossings in his riding. We saw the impact of the cuts coming, so we had discussions with the CBSA union at the time.

Next week, as part of a study on femicides at the Standing Committee on the Status of Women, we will be hearing from PolyRemembers. Every time, we go through the same game, we get re-elected, and every election, we see announcements on the issue of better gun control. We are going to hear from the members of PolyRemembers, who are going to reiterate their message and their demand for gun control, more than 35 years on.

There is no question that a lot of guns are coming in through the border, but I want to figure out what measures or recommendations we could propose in our study. There are so many that need to be put in place. My colleague gave a whole list them in her speech.

Which one is the most important and most urgent to put in place? What should be the biggest takeaway from a study on femicide and gun control?

Public Safety and National SecurityCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

11:50 a.m.

Bloc

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

Madam Speaker, it is pretty simple. The government's next move appears to be implementing a buyback program for banned firearms. That is what we have been asking for, but it is a half measure insofar as there are still assault-style firearms circulating on the market that can do the same things as those on the banned weapons list. We need to get the job done right.

It is easy. The government has the ability to implement regulations banning these weapons. That should happen before a buyback program is put in place. I would not be surprised if that is what PolyRemembers asks for at the Standing Committee on the Status of Women. It is one of their main demands. This week, its members spoke with the mayor of Montreal, Valérie Plante, who is once again asking that the government implement the recommendations and regulations tied to Bill C‑21.

I would say that is the most pressing point.

Public Safety and National SecurityCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

11:50 a.m.

Conservative

Alex Ruff Conservative Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON

Madam Speaker, I have a very short question. The member was just talking about banning assault-style firearms. Could she point to the definition of that anywhere in legislation or anywhere in the Government of Canada, or even offer her own definition of what she means by that? I have been trying for over five years to get an answer to that question, and the government has none. It does not exist. I think it is a misnomer meant to confuse Canadians. We should talk about the capabilities and capacity of firearms, not about terms that do not mean anything other than to people who are trying to divide Canadians.

Public Safety and National SecurityCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

11:50 a.m.

Bloc

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

Madam Speaker, my colleague is right. The Government of Canada does not seem to have a definition for assault rifles or assault-style military weapons. It is hard to define. I get the impression that that is why the government decided to adopt an evergreen definition, because it was unable to truly define what it was. That is how we end up with these problems. The government is unable to define things.

It is the same thing when it comes to the environment. The government talks about inefficient subsidies for oil companies. Can anyone tell me exactly what an inefficient subsidy is?

I do not think that any subsidies are efficient when they are given to companies that make billions of dollars in profits every year. It is kind of the same problem with gun control. The government is unable to define things as they are.

Public Safety and National SecurityCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

11:50 a.m.

NDP

Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON

Madam Speaker, I am honoured, as always, to rise in the House for the issue of violence, gun violence and protecting communities.

I would like to start by telling Kaylie Smith, 16 years old, from Cobalt that we love her. She was the victim of a horrific trauma and an attempted femicide recently in our community of Cobalt. I want to thank first responders, police and everyone who came out for Kaylie. She is going to make it, but what struck me after that horrific violence was how our community came together, not in rage but to understand that we have to be there to support one another. We love Kaylie; she is going to make it.

The issue of guns and safety is one of the favourite political Punch and Judy shows that I have seen over my 20 years in Parliament. My Liberal and Conservative colleagues get their straw men up, jump up and down, and throw rocks and slogans. Today, we are debating a report that is two years old. It is a great report; it is a powerful report, but nobody has wanted to act on it until now. It is about interrupting government business, so suddenly we are dealing with the issue of guns and gangs, something we need a strategy on.

I want to talk about how this plays out in northern Ontario, where we are seeing levels of gun violence that have never existed before. It is a complex issue how we have gotten to this place. A triad of damage has been done to rural Canada that has caused the unprecedented level of violence we are seeing.

When I say violence, I am talking about young gang members who are coming into very small communities, like Kirkland Lake and Timmins, up the James Bay coast, to prey on people suffering from addictions. We dealt with the Hells Angels 10 years ago. They were organized gangs; they were big gangs, but what we are dealing with now are gangs that have a certain level of chaos. When I talk to frontline workers and OPP officers I have known for years, they say they just want to survive and get home at the end of the day. That is not something we have ever heard in northern Ontario before.

First responders do not know what they are going to see when they go on a trauma call. I have talked to frontline mental health workers who, when they are going into homes to try to keep someone alive, often need flak jackets and backup because they do not know if there are gangs there; they do not know what they are going to see.

We can take a very simplistic approach and blame the Prime Minister from Papineau for his soft-on-crime agenda, and then get a couple of Conservative bumper stickers that say we are going to fight the crime, do the time and axe the wax, all that talk, or we can talk about how we are in a situation that has made our communities vulnerable to chaos and predatory violence.

It begins with the walk-away that began under Brian Mulroney, which was then totally delivered by Paul Martin with his walk-away on housing. When I was younger, I worked with men coming out of prison. I worked with refugees. I worked with addicts on the street. The first step was to get them into housing, and the first housing we got them into were crappy boarding houses in the crappy neighbourhoods in South Riverdale. If we could get them in there and sobered up, just for a month, we could get them on the list for social housing.

I remember my good friend Robert, who had one of the worst levels of addiction I had ever seen. I did not think Robert would make it to the end of the month, but we finally got him into housing. Robert had caused an enormous cost to the health system. Every night we were at emergency wards, psych wards or detox clinics. We got him into safe housing in a rotten boarding house. We got him into safe housing in the public system. Robert lived for the next 20 years and never went to the hospital again.

That was from the public investment in housing, and the great lie—