Gary Anandasangaree’s story begins in Jaffna, Sri Lanka, where he was born into a family marked by politics and conflict. His mother brought him to Canada in 1983 after anti-Tamil riots swept the country, while his father, V. Anandasangaree, remained behind as a prominent Tamil politician. Four decades later, the boy who arrived as a refugee is now Canada’s Minister of Public Safety, overseeing one of Ottawa’s most politically fraught portfolios.That journey has defined how he is seen in both the Tamil-Canadian community and the broader political arena. It has also set the stage for the scrutiny he now faces. In recent months, Anandasangaree has been pulled into the centre of Canada’s gun control debate, facing criticism over a leaked conversation, his grasp of firearms licensing rules, and relentless attacks from Conservative opponents..Tamil diaspora, Sri Lanka, and security recusalDue to his Tamil heritage and political activism on human rights in Sri Lanka, questions of conflict of interest have been raised. In June 2025, Anandasangaree announced he would step back from national security decisions relating to the Tamil community, to avoid any perception of conflict.A few days later, he further recused himself from any matters related to the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) or the World Tamil Movement.Separately, media reports indicate that prior to becoming a cabinet minister, he had written letters in support of immigration applications for an individual who had been associated with the LTTE—though he has defended his actions as part of advocacy and not a breach of law. These actions have drawn scrutiny from opposition parties and commentators, especially those questioning the clarity of boundaries between community advocacy and ministerial responsibilities..A private recording goes publicThe controversy began when an audio recording surfaced of Anandasangaree speaking with a tenant in one of his properties. In the exchange, he cast doubt on the federal government’s plan to buy back prohibited assault-style rifles from gun owners.“Let’s be frank about this: I just don’t think municipal police services have the resources to enforce this,” he said in the recording.He also suggested he might personally make up the difference if the government’s compensation fell short of what firearm owners had originally paid.The comments quickly made their way into the House of Commons. Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre accused the minister of undermining the very program he was responsible for implementing.“He accidentally told the truth,” Poilievre said. “He admitted this program is not worth the money and Canadians should not be forced to foot the bill for Liberal virtue signalling.”Anandasangaree rejected that interpretation, insisting the conversation was private and his words taken out of context. “I have absolute confidence in the government’s plan,” he told reporters. He later described parts of the exchange as “a bad attempt at humour.”.Struggling with the detailsIf the leaked tape created a political headache, what followed added to it. In committee hearings, Anandasangaree was pressed on basic details of Canada’s gun licensing regime. He stumbled when asked about the Possession and Acquisition Licence, known as the PAL, and the Canadian Firearms Safety Course that underpins it.When Conservative MPs asked him to explain the process, he admitted: “I am not an expert on this.”That statement drew more fire. Critics argued that the minister responsible for regulating firearms should have at least a working knowledge of how Canadians obtain licences. Liberals defended him by pointing out that cabinet ministers rely on their departments to handle technical expertise..Andrew Lawton’s cross-examinationConservative MP Andrew Lawton, a former broadcaster, pressed the issue in committee and later amplified the exchange on social media. He questioned Anandasangaree repeatedly on licensing details and posted the video afterward.“How can Canadians trust this minister to regulate firearms when he doesn’t even know what a gun licence is?” Lawton asked in a post that quickly circulated among Conservative supporters.For Lawton, the moment underscored what he sees as Liberal mismanagement of the firearms file. For the government, it was an example of the opposition turning a private admission of inexperience into a political weapon..Poilievre keeps up the pressurePierre Poilievre carried the issue into daily question period. Waving the leaked recording as proof of hypocrisy, he accused Anandasangaree of “playing politics with guns.” He argued that if the minister himself doubted the buyback program, then Canadians could not trust its success.“He told his tenant that the police cannot enforce it and that it is not worth the cost,” Poilievre said. “That is not leadership, that is a government wasting money while making communities no safer.”Anandasangaree responded that the program was still in development and that police services would be supported with federal resources. “This is about keeping Canadians safe,” he said, urging MPs to see the buyback as part of a broader public safety agenda..The larger fight over gun controlAt its core, the debate surrounding Anandasangaree is less about one minister’s words than about the future of the government’s gun policy. The buyback program has been one of the Liberals’ signature promises, introduced after the 2020 ban on certain semi-automatic rifles.Supporters argue that removing these firearms from circulation will make communities safer. Opponents insist the program is expensive, ineffective and burdensome for law-abiding gun owners.Data from Statistics Canada and other sources suggests that legally registered firearms are rarely the basis for gun crimes. In recent homicide cases where origin could be determined, only a small percentage involved firearms that remained in the hands of lawful owners. In 2023, firearm-related violent crimes made up just 2.6% of all violent crime incidents. Many analysts argue that the majority of firearms used in crimes are acquired illicitly through smuggling, theft, or unauthorized manufacturing rather than through properly licensed civilian ownership.For Anandasangaree, the controversy has become a defining test of his tenure as public safety minister. Every slip, whether in a private conversation or under parliamentary questioning, is being used by his critics to argue the Liberals are not serious about public safety.
