SoVote

Ms. Raquel Dancho (Kildonan—St. Paul, CPC)

Feb/2/23 11:06:57 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the remarks of the Minister of Public Safety today, although I did not hear specific, concrete changes that he or his colleague, the Minister of Justice, would like to make concerning the Criminal Code. Therefore, I am assuming there are no changes coming. We have heard from every premier in the country, asking for changes to the Criminal Code concerning bail. We have heard from the Toronto police, proposing three proposals concerning bail reform. Again, this is all in light of the fact that a young new police officer was killed over the holidays by a violent repeat offender who was out on bail and also had a firearm prohibition. He shot and murdered a young police officer, and I did not hear anything to satisfy me that the government would be doing something in the next few months to bring forward some change. What concrete steps is Minister of Public Safety going to take, working with the Minister of Justice, to ensure that this is the last police officer who is murdered by a violent repeat offender?

182 words

All Topics

Hon. Marco Mendicino

Feb/2/23 11:08:02 a.m.
Watch

First, Mr. Speaker, I wholeheartedly share my colleague's concern about the loss of Officer Pierzchala. I grieved with his family and the entire OPP community. That was the fifth in a series of months last year, and it was among the most difficult functions that I exercise in this office. I assure the member, and I hope she takes it at face value, that I understand the trauma, the grief and the suffering that is being felt not only by the law enforcement communities but by communities right across the country, including indigenous and racialized communities that have been systematically marginalized as a result of policies whose design and intent was to do just that. That is wrong. With regard to the member's specific question on bail reform, I hope she will have heard the Minister of Justice, and I will reiterate it, that we are in direct lines of communication with law enforcement. I have spoken to the president of the CACP. I have spoken to other senior leadership in law enforcement. We are going to sit down and look at those proposals very carefully in a specially convened meeting of federal, provincial and territorial partners. That is where the work will be done on the merits. However, it is not the only thing we need to address. We also need to address the other preventive strategies that I discussed in my remarks as well.

238 words

All Topics

Ms. Kristina Michaud (Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, BQ)

Feb/2/23 11:09:28 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I am very glad to hear the minister's stance on this important issue. We have been working together on Bill C‑21. Gun violence is top of mind these days. While Bill C‑21 addresses some of the issues, it does not address them all, unfortunately. Most importantly, it does not do anything about the proliferation of firearms. In 2022, Montreal's murder rate hit a 10-year high. Something must be done, and it is the federal government's responsibility, because it is in charge of borders. During interviews, the minister has said more will be done in addition to Bill C‑21. What exactly does he have in mind? Will he make it happen fast? We cannot go on having murder rates that keep going up year after year. Concrete action must be taken to prevent gun violence.

148 words

Hon. Marco Mendicino

Feb/2/23 11:10:25 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by thanking my colleague and her party, the Bloc Québécois, for their co-operation on Bill C-21. I hope we will continue in that spirit so we can get this bill passed. It is just one pillar in a comprehensive strategy created on this side of the House to reduce gun violence. The member asked me what else we plan to do, besides this bill, what other options are on the table, and what we plan to do about the border. Over the past two years, the federal government invested $450 million in a prevention strategy. Some of that money was invested in Quebec. As Minister of Public Safety, I went to Quebec and announced a $40-million investment, in partnership with the Quebec government and municipalities, to identify the root causes contributing to violence on the street. There are plenty of opportunities for the government and Quebec to work together, including with the Bloc Québécois. I am always willing to work with my colleague.

182 words

Ms. Jenny Kwan (Vancouver East, NDP)

Feb/2/23 11:11:51 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I was glad to hear that the minister wants to engage in addressing the causes of crime. In my riding of Vancouver East, and particularly in the Downtown Eastside, we have a major homelessness crisis. We have people with mental health issues who cannot get mental health supports. We have people with an addiction issue who cannot get support or treatment on demand. People are dying in the community. The fallout of that is that it impacts the entire community in all its ways. Will the minister support and will he have the government initiate what had been done before, which was the Vancouver agreement, bringing all levels of government together, working together, to address the crisis in the Downtown Eastside? That is a possible approach to bringing forward solutions to the problem.

135 words

Hon. Marco Mendicino

Feb/2/23 11:12:50 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the short answer is yes. In fact, I have met with battered women's groups and shelters in the Downtown Eastside of Vancouver. We have met with municipal leadership there. I had the chance to meet with the new mayor. We are looking forward to being able to make, I hope in the not too distant future, some announcements around the building safer communities fund, which speaks to the core of our issue around prevention to address the systemic issues that have far too long plagued our justice system. We need to ensure that we put an appropriate focus and emphasis on those who have been marginalized: women, members of the 2SLGBTQI community, indigenous peoples, racialized Canadians. That has to be part of this debate, and that is precisely what this government will do. Let us keep all Canadians safe.

142 words

Ms. Kristina Michaud (Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, BQ)

Feb/2/23 11:13:47 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to wish you a happy new year. I know that February is a bit late, but this is one of the first times we have seen each other this year. I would also like to wish my constituents, the people of Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, a happy new year. I will begin by saying I will be sharing my time with the member for Saint-Jean. I am very pleased to speak to this issue, which I believe is exceptionally important. Law and order is obviously an area that we, as members of Parliament, are concerned about. I agree with my Conservative colleagues on several aspects of this motion. In the past eight years, violent crime has increased by 32% and gang-related homicides by 92%. The number of violent crimes has skyrocketed, inevitably jeopardizing Canadians' safety. Five police officers were killed in the line of duty in just one year. That is enormous when compared with previous years. In Ontario, 44 police officers were killed in the line of duty between 1961 and 2009. That is about one per year, and, in my opinion, that is one too many. In 2022, five police officers died while on duty. That is not just too many, that is totally unacceptable. The people who undertake to protect the public should never pay with their lives. In this respect, I am in complete agreement with my colleagues, and I must say that the efforts made by the Liberal Party in recent years to prevent violence, limit the number of firearms in circulation and help break up gangs have been less than stellar. It would be wise to try not to get lost in the statistics. There are many statistics out there, and they support some of the facts included in the Conservatives’ motion. Overall, the number of crimes reported by police in Canada in recent years shows an alarming increase. Hate crimes have increased by 72%. These are mainly crimes motivated by hate towards a religion, sexual orientation or ethnic origin. Gun crimes have risen 25% in the past 10 years. As I was saying earlier, there were more murders in Montreal in 2021 than in any of the previous 10 years. Some 37 murders were committed, compared with 28 in 2020, with 25 being the result of a dispute or settling of scores within organized crime and 12 involving Canadians between the ages of 12 and 24. In 2021, police reported 34,242 cases of sexual assault. That is about 90 cases of sexual assault for every 100,000 citizens, keeping in mind that only about 6% of sexual assaults are reported to police. Let us not fool ourselves: This increase in violence is not just a big-city problem. In my own rural riding in the Gaspé, in Eastern Quebec, a man was arrested for weapons trafficking in Pointe à la-Croix barely three weeks ago. He allegedly supplied illegal weapons and narcotics to Montreal street gangs. In 2021, a raid in Gaspé led to the seizure of multiple illegal firearms, more specifically, 50 long guns, 10 handguns, bullet-proof vests and ammunition of every calibre. Last August, shots were heard in a residential neighbourhood in Gaspé, and an individual was arrested. The picture we are painting here is pretty grim. The government must take concrete and legitimate measures to address Canadians’ concerns and to ensure their safety. In its motion, the Conservative Party calls on the government to repeal the elements enacted by Bill C-75. Although it is true and entirely legitimate to point out that certain elements of the bail reform are problematic, as we have seen in the news recently, the fact remains that the wording of the motion is also problematic. Some elements are simply false. Let us be clear: No changes made by Bill C-75 require any judge to release violent repeat offenders. With all due respect, saying otherwise, intentionally or not, is more of an opinion than a proven and verified fact. To say that the bail system is no longer working is also not entirely true. The bail system is based on the art of finding a balance between public safety and the presumption of innocence, which is protected by something that is quite dear to the Conservatives, specifically, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The Bloc Québécois had a number of good reasons to vote in favour of Bill C-75, even though, as we said, given recent events, we can now see that the legislation has its flaws. I am sure that my colleague from Saint‑Jean will elaborate on this idea because she is an extremely competent and seasoned legal expert. I will be happy to just go over some of the facts that were checked and quantified. While the convicted offender population has been gradually declining in recent years, the number of people held in pre-trial detention almost tripled in the past 35 years. This increase occurred while the overall prison populations remained relatively stable during the same period. In fact, the crime rate had been falling since the 1990s. Under the law, there were more innocent people held on pre-trial detention than actual offenders serving custodial sentences, after being convicted, in provincial and territorial correctional facilities since 2004-05. This data is widely available. It comes from an analysis conducted by the Department of Justice in 2015 in connection with Bill C-75. My colleagues should therefore be able to obtain the report and base their decisions on those facts, which were checked. We must keep in mind that, financially speaking, a growing population in pre-trial detention will result in considerable additional costs for governments at every level. This only places more pressure on already limited resources. The debate surrounding the bail system is perfectly legitimate, and it is a good thing. On this point, once again, I agree with my Conservative colleagues. Bill C-75 has several flaws, as the provincial premiers unanimously pointed out to the federal government. Basically, they are asking for the same thing as one of the elements included in today’s motion. They claim that it is justifiable to strengthen bail laws so that people who are prohibited from possessing firearms and are then accused of a serious firearm offence cannot easily get bail. I think that some work could be done in this area. This inevitably leads me to the actions that the government should take to prevent gun crime. We have said it often enough: Bill C-21 does not necessarily fix the problem of the proliferation of firearms. I was happy to be able to discuss this with the minister. Other actions must be taken in other areas. More specifically, we need more border controls and prevention measures in large cities. Obviously, financial investments must be made, and the government always enjoys showing off its financial record in this area. However, there are other things that can be done, and the Bloc Québécois has presented several options, for example, collaborative efforts between the various police forces. There are a lot of things that can and should be done. Although we agree with the Conservatives on several aspects of this motion, the idea of strengthening legislation is rooted in the ideology of law and order. Right now, the proliferation of firearms in our major cities is a problem, we cannot say it often enough. Although this reflex reaction is understandable, a number of experts, including Carolyn Yule, a professor of sociology and anthropology at the University of Guelph who studies the bail system, claim that there is no evidence to suggest that a harsher approach to bail would improve public safety. I think that is something to think about. Given that the text of the motion moved today includes elements that may not have been fact-checked and that could potentially turn out to be false, it is impossible for the Bloc Québécois to support this motion, unfortunately. As I said, we agree with several aspects, and the government must do more. It is true that crime has increased in recent years, but unfortunately, because of certain elements in the motion, we cannot support it.

1404 words

All Topics

Mr. John Brassard (Barrie—Innisfil, CPC)

Feb/2/23 11:23:18 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the member has done tremendous work on the public safety committee. She is concerned, as we all are, about the increase of gun crime and gang violence in cities across this country. This motion is a call to action. Never before have I seen, and I am sure my colleague has not seen this either, a coming together of so many organizations, individuals, big city mayors, police chiefs across the country, police associations, community groups and advocates talking about the need for bail reform. This motion is more of a call for action, reflecting what those organizations are telling us. They are on the ground. They are seeing it. If we talk to police officers, and my colleague likely has, they are telling us that the system is broken and it needs to be fixed. My question to my hon. colleague is as follows: What are some of the solutions that she would propose to fix the broken bail system in this country?

165 words

Ms. Kristina Michaud

Feb/2/23 11:24:36 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, my colleague raises an interesting point. It is indeed a call for action. That is a good thing, because we are talking about this issue today. Premiers and police associations across the country have also sounded the alarm. However, I have doubts about the means the Conservatives are trying to use today to take action. Is today's motion the right way to resolve the issue or to provide solutions? Would the ideal way not be to introduce a bill to amend certain provisions that were in Bill C‑75? Perhaps that would be a better way to take action. Obviously, we, the parliamentarians, are not really the experts. We invite experts and listen to them. If certain police associations are saying one thing or another, it is our duty to listen to them. I am not sure that today's motion is the right way to move forward. I understand why the Conservatives are putting this issue on the table. It provides us with an opportunity to discuss it. However, if they really want to change the provisions included in Bill C‑75, I think that they should introduce a bill.

198 words

Mr. Randall Garrison (Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, NDP)

Feb/2/23 11:25:45 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has taken a very balanced approach to this question today. I appreciate that the Bloc has recognized that there may be better ways to solve this problem than the motion before us. I know the hon. member is a member of the public safety committee. Does the hon. member share my optimism that all parties came together on Monday to agree to hold hearings on the bail challenges we face in this country and to look for practical solutions to specific problems? Does she share my optimism that we can work together among all parties here to get that job done?

106 words

Ms. Kristina Michaud

Feb/2/23 11:26:22 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question and for his optimistic approach. My favourite moments in the House are when all the parties agree on a subject. We saw it then, and we saw it again yesterday with the motion on the Uighur people. I think that we are all capable of working together and putting partisanship aside in order to move toward something that will benefit the entire population. It is even more important to do so when it comes to matters of public safety. I share my colleague's optimism. However, we must put partisanship aside in order to work together quickly. We know how difficult it is to move quickly in this massive system, and it can be hard to advance certain files. When it comes to matters of public safety, we need to move forward quickly.

142 words

The Speaker

Feb/2/23 11:27:08 a.m.
Watch

The member for Berthier—Maskinongé has 30 seconds to ask his question followed by what I hope will be a brief response.

25 words

Mr. Yves Perron (Berthier—Maskinongé, BQ)

Feb/2/23 11:27:22 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech, which was very straightforward, sensible and reasonable. In the time we have left, I would like her to talk about what should be done. This morning, we are talking about how to enhance public safety. In her speech, my colleague talked about what the Liberal government has failed to do to control illegal firearms in Quebec and Canada. What specific measures could be put in place?

75 words

Ms. Kristina Michaud

Feb/2/23 11:27:52 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I do not have much time, so I will focus on one specific issue: what the government is not doing about illegal gun trafficking. For example, trains and ships arriving in Canada, in Quebec, at the Port of Montreal, should be inspected. Currently, only 1% of containers are inspected, even though we know car thefts are happening right at the Port of Montreal. If it is that easy to sneak cars through, imagine how much easier it is to sneak guns through. The federal government could definitely be doing more. Borders are its responsibility. We have suggested lots of solutions. For example, a collaboration must be established between police and the Canada Border Services Agency. According to the experts, this is an idea worth considering.

127 words

Ms. Christine Normandin (Saint-Jean, BQ)

Feb/2/23 11:28:44 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a few seconds to wish you a happy new year, good health, happiness, love and anything else your heart desires. I want to also send that message to my constituents in Saint-Jean, as this is the first time I have spoken in the House this year. I am not going to put the Conservatives on trial for their motion today. I would like to believe that this idea stems from a genuine desire to reduce violent crime and prevent the proliferation of illegal firearms. I hope that I will not be put on trial either, despite the fact that I am going to describe the problems with this motion. In my opinion, it does not provide a solution. I will be disappointed if I hear, yet again, during question and comment period, that the Bloc Québécois has helped put dangerous criminals back on the street and refuses to admit that there is a problem. I hope that does not happen, but I will be sure to manage my expectations. There are a few problems with the motion, and I will go through them one at a time. For instance, no distinction is made between correlation and causation. Some members have presented statistics showing an increase in certain crimes and said that this is caused by Bill C-75. That is correlation. There is a theory about that, known as the hemline economy theory. According to this theory, when short skirts are in fashion, the economy is doing well, and when long skirts are in fashion, the economy is doing poorly. If we were to rely solely on this index, we would probably all make some very poor choices in the stock market. Similarly, if a temporal correlation is the only correlation that exists between an increase in crime and the passage of Bill C‑75, then we are probably overlooking the real solutions to a multi-faceted problem. Another problem is that some of the “whereas” clauses and demands in the motion are based on somewhat fallacious arguments, and some are not supported by any evidence. I will come back to that aspect when I go through the motion in greater detail. The arguments raise another problem. We are hearing a lot of references to the case of Randall McKenzie, who allegedly killed a police officer in December while out on bail. If we look at this case more closely, we might find that it is not just him being out on bail that is the problem. Randall McKenzie had already been locked up and was released on bail with some of the strictest conditions possible. He was on house arrest 24 hours a day, he wore an electronic tracking device and he was allowed to leave home only for medical reasons or to get legal advice from his lawyer. The question is, what happened? How did he end up out in public when the company monitoring the GPS device should have sent an alert to have him immediately apprehended? There may be a problem there too. No one has raised that issue yet, but the analysis should go beyond the simple issue of bail. I heard it said that if Randall McKenzie had not been out on bail, the police officer would still be alive. I am sorry, but we have still not heard all of the evidence in this case. The authorities are not certain that he is the one who pulled the trigger. There is a co-accused in the case, so the argument is perhaps a little thin. This is only a secondary point, I only wanted to mention it. However, it is perhaps a stretch to say that a life would have been saved if bail had not been awarded. I would like to point out a fourth problem with the motion. Making it more difficult to obtain bail in the case of illegal arms possession will not dissuade people from procuring illegal arms. The motion will not have an impact on first offences with a firearm. Adopting the motion could leave us with a false sense of security. I will quickly review some of the points in the motion. The motion states, “That, given that, after eight years of this government's soft on crime policies, (i) violent crime has increased by 32%”. According to Statistics Canada, this number includes sexual assaults. In recent years, thanks to greater awareness among other things, there has been an increase in the number of crimes reported, which contributes to the increase in this number. When we talk about violent crime in general, we are not necessarily referring to violent gun crime or cases in which the accused was awarded bail. That, however, is how the question for the government is being framed. The motion states that “violent, repeat offenders are obtaining bail much more easily”. I still have not heard a clear explanation of whether this is true, and, especially, if it is related to the repeal of certain aspects of Bill C‑75 requested in the motion. The motion also states that “five Canadian police officers were killed in the line of duty in just one year”. That is both deplorable and tragic. We should do something about that. However, no connection is made between the murder of these police officers and the bail system. Statistics are used to justify strengthening bail provisions, but there is not necessarily a rational link between the statistics and what the motion is asking for. That is deplorable. I think that the Conservatives could have been more thorough in presenting their motion. One of the things the House is being called to do is the following: (a) fix Canada's broken bail system by immediately repealing the elements enacted by Bill C‑75...which force judges to release violent, repeat offenders onto the streets, allowing them to reoffend; As my colleague mentioned, there is a fallacy in this paragraph. There is nothing in Bill C‑75 or the Criminal Code forcing judges to release people. In fact, when we get right down to it, the only thing that forces judges to release people is the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. There are two fairly specific rights in the following paragraphs of section 11 of the Charter: Any person charged with an offence has the right... (d) to be presumed innocent until proven guilty according to law in a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal; (e) not to be denied reasonable bail without just cause; The charter, not the former Bill C‑75, sets out that requirement for judges. The charter and the sections that allow for bail have established criteria. Custody of an accused is only justified by the Criminal Code in certain cases, for example, “(a) where the detention is necessary to ensure his or her attendance in court”, such as someone with dual citizenship who is afraid of losing citizenship in another country, or “(b) where the detention is necessary for the protection or safety of the public”. There are pre-existing criteria that judges can use to maintain institutional custody. Where “(c) the detention is necessary to maintain confidence”, the judge has the discretion to keep an accused in custody. Section 515 of the Criminal Code also provides terms and conditions. For example, consideration must be given to “(iii) the circumstances surrounding the commission of the offence, including whether a firearm was used”, which we already do, and “(iv) the fact that the accused is liable, on conviction, for a potentially lengthy term of imprisonment or, in the case of an offence that involves, or whose subject-matter is, a firearm, a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of three years or more.” The Conservatives are saying that they want to, and I quote: strengthen Canada's bail laws so that those who are prohibited from possessing firearms and who are then accused of serious firearms offences do not easily get bail; However, that is already included in section 515 of the Criminal Code. Will that really change anything? It is a fair question. When we talk to criminal lawyers about the gun problem, we see that it is getting harder and harder to get bail when a firearm was used to commit a crime, so the motion contains some things that are already covered. The motion seeks to repeal the former bill without really explaining what it is about. It attacks Bill C‑75, which actually does some other worthwhile things. For example, it creates a reverse onus for domestic violence. The accused must prove that they will not be a danger to the public if they are released on bail, whereas for other crimes the opposite is true. With regard to gun violence, the onus is already on the accused, or in other words, it is up to them to prove that they do not pose a risk to society. As I mentioned, although this motion addresses a real and serious problem, it may not be the right solution. As I also mentioned, if a person makes their stock market decisions based on the hemline index, then they will likely make poor choices. I think the same applies here. We need to have conversations about the best way to proceed so we do not opt for a bad solution to a real problem.

1610 words

All Topics

Mr. Han Dong (Don Valley North, Lib.)

Feb/2/23 11:39:06 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, my colleague touched upon something I think is very important. Bill C-75 did impose a reverse onus on serious offenders to prove that they have conditions and reasoning to obtain bail. She said something about it is getting harder to get bail, especially for those offenders. Can she elaborate on that and assess whether weakening Bill C-75 served the purpose of this opposition day motion?

69 words

Ms. Christine Normandin

Feb/2/23 11:39:51 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the real question is, should judges be told what to do more than they already are? Generally speaking, when judges are told what they must do, such as with mandatory minimum sentences, those rulings often blocked by the courts because they do not comply with the Charter. That is a real risk, so it seems to me that may not be the best way to make sure potentially dangerous people are not freed. Maybe it would be better to figure out how we can ensure that people who are released on parole do not represent a real threat to the public and how we respect the right of people who are presumed innocent not to be wrongly imprisoned. There are a lot of things to keep in mind here, including the fact that it now takes up to two and a half years to get a hearing. People can be detained that whole time before being found not guilty in the end. Would it not be better to do something like increase funding for the judicial system so that, if someone has to be held without bail, their trial can at least happen sooner? That could be part of the solution, and I may have other suggestions when people ask me questions.

214 words

Mr. Ted Falk (Provencher, CPC)

Feb/2/23 11:41:15 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member cited the incident with Randall McKenzie who recently killed a police officer in southern Ontario. She also cited information that was provided earlier in the House and created doubt as to the accuracy of that information. One thing that is very certain is that, out of the 44 murders in Toronto this past year, 24 of them were committed by people who were out on bail. We also know that Randall McKenzie was out on bail. What part of that does she not understand? Had those people not been out on bail, those incidents would not have happened.

103 words

Ms. Christine Normandin

Feb/2/23 11:41:57 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, to hear my Conservative colleagues tell it, as soon as someone commits a crime, even as minor as simple drug possession, they should automatically be detained so as to prevent any subsequent crimes. However, there are solutions that would be much more appropriate for this kind of problem. For instance, measures could be taken to ensure that conditions are respected and that, when there is a breach, the person is more easily returned to custody. Many gun crimes are committed in the context of substance abuse problems. We should be looking closer at this aspect and offering the right services to the people who need them. As I mentioned, Randall McKenzie was wearing a GPS tracking device. That is one of the strictest bail conditions that can be imposed. Obviously, he was able to leave his home without any alarms going off, without the GPS company notifying anyone, and without any police following him. There was obviously some sort of problem there, too. There are several aspects of the problem that can be addressed without going for a solution that seems a little too good to be true, one that is too singular, one that risks giving the public the impression that the problem has been solved, when it probably would not be solved.

216 words

Mr. Alexandre Boulerice (Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, NDP)

Feb/2/23 11:43:21 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Saint-Jean for her very thoughtful, reasonable and well-informed speech. In Montreal, there are shootings and gunfire. Violence has increased, parents and families are worried about their children and there is a proliferation of guns. I would like my colleague's opinion. Is there not a security problem that stems from the lack of gun control?

64 words

SoVote

House Hansard - 152