Evidence of meeting #3 for Public Safety and National Security in the 39th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was going.
A recording is available from Parliament.
3:45 p.m.
Liberal
Ujjal Dosanjh Liberal Vancouver South, BC
Yes, I am. I'm making it palatable or acceptable to everyone.
May I just respond to Serge Ménard's point, if nobody else is on the list?
3:45 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Garry Breitkreuz
There is Mr. Norlock on the list. Do you want to wait and then have a wrap-up?
3:45 p.m.
Liberal
Ujjal Dosanjh Liberal Vancouver South, BC
I thought if I could just have two words....
I agree with Serge that we don't want to be stepping on provincial toes. That is not my intent. But just as we can study New York or California, or experiences in other United States jurisdictions, we are free to study the experience in Quebec or New Brunswick or British Columbia or any other province. I think it was in that sense that we thought we could bring in the experience of all jurisdictions, or many of them, and look at it to provide some guidance to whoever might want to accept our guidance at some point.
3:45 p.m.
Conservative
Rick Norlock Conservative Northumberland—Quinte West, ON
I must apologize. I was going down for a coffee when Ms. Priddy was speaking, but I think I heard her say “It needs to be expanded broadly”, about the service we provide for new Canadians coming into airports, etc.
3:50 p.m.
Conservative
Rick Norlock Conservative Northumberland—Quinte West, ON
Or that particular airport. But I don't know why it should be just that airport, if we're talking about services. I think we're getting almost to the point where anything concerning an airport....
I would like, with respect to Mr. Dosanjh's motion, to say that I think it's a good idea, as I mentioned at the last meeting, that we look at this issue. But to do it justice, I think we have to do a lot of things to make sure we hone it to exactly what the intent is.
We are, if we count Nova Scotia now, getting into six and seven—and we'll make it eight—examples, and I agree that this is a federal issue. When we're dealing with CBSA, RCMP, and airport authorities, definitely the federal government has almost exclusive jurisdiction in those areas—with deference, of course, to the administration of justice.
But I also am cognizant of the work ahead for the committee. We were all in agreement that we would go along this line and discuss this issue, provided it didn't hold up Bill C-3 and one other thing we're dealing with and are almost right at the end of, and that's our witness protection issues.
I think there's almost unanimity here that we do this, so let's now figure out the mechanics of how we're going to deal with those three issues.
3:50 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Garry Breitkreuz
I'll tell you as the chair that I'm becoming concerned here that we already made decisions at the last meeting that now we seem to be undoing a bit. You instructed the clerk and the staff to draw up a schedule, which we were going to discuss next. Now, if we pass a motion here to start this before Christmas, we're going to be undoing or contradicting what we passed previously. So I'd just be careful.
The other concern I have as chair is that we seem to be expanding the parameters of this study to the point that I don't know how we're going to contain this thing and make it a meaningful study if it becomes so broad that we're studying almost everything.
So I caution the committee as to the direction we're going. If this becomes too broad a study, it could almost be meaningless. The original motion was quite narrow, and now, if we amend it as suggested, I as the chair will have a hard time knowing what witnesses to invite.
Do you want to respond to that?
3:50 p.m.
Liberal
Ujjal Dosanjh Liberal Vancouver South, BC
As to what witnesses you invite from time to time, the committee would meet in camera, or otherwise the steering committee could meet and deal with those issues.
Let's not jump ahead and think we're not going to be able to do this. I think we will be able to do this.
I agree that we had agreed to deal with Bill C-3 as a priority, and that still remains a priority. If we can get this work started before Christmas, it won't be finished for several months. I'm hoping that by then we will be able to have some benefit from the other studies. Some of them will be completed.
We should do Bill C-3. We should, if at all possible, do witness protection as well. I'm a little more flexible with respect to witness protection. If we can put in a meeting or two on this issue before Christmas, and witness protection, and go beyond the new year—and this, obviously, will continue for some time—I'm okay with that.
I'm happy to be bound by the other members of the committee if they want to do Bill C-3. Obviously we all want to finish Bill C-3 because of the court prescription. If we want to finish witness protection before Christmas, I will reluctantly go along with the committee.
The idea here isn't to be obstructionist, but if we can commence this work, even one meeting on this, and then finish it in the next sitting, I'm happy with that as well. I understand the constraints on our time.
3:50 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Garry Breitkreuz
Mr. Brown is next, but if you want to just interject something....
3:50 p.m.
Conservative
Dave MacKenzie Conservative Oxford, ON
I'm just wondering if we can do that in an extra meeting, if there is time—
3:50 p.m.
Conservative
Dave MacKenzie Conservative Oxford, ON
—because I'm thinking that a lot of what we need to do is to draft where we want to go and ask the researchers perhaps to do some things while we're gone.
3:50 p.m.
Liberal
Ujjal Dosanjh Liberal Vancouver South, BC
We can do that in an extra in camera meeting. I don't have a problem with that.
3:50 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Garry Breitkreuz
Let me just say what the clerk has suggested to me here—we don't have to decide on this right now—and then we'll hear from Mr. Brown.
The tentative schedule we drew up would result, if we adopt it, in an in camera meeting on December 13 to give drafting instructions to our staff here on the review of the witness protection program, and maybe at the same meeting, if we have time, we could also give them instructions on what witnesses to line up for when we come back in the next session after Christmas. That's a possibility.
3:55 p.m.
Liberal
3:55 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Garry Breitkreuz
I wasn't going to hand it out, because it would be a distraction right now, but....
Mr. Brown, you're next.
3:55 p.m.
Conservative
Gord Brown Conservative Leeds—Grenville, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I'm quite happy to support the gist of where we're going here. What I'm concerned about is that we focus too narrowly with this motion. I'm prepared to support it so that we can get moving, but we don't want to make it too broad, and I'm concerned that we're getting into immigration issues with this.
I think what we're trying to get at here is the whole taser issue. We don't know; maybe it's because of the death at the Vancouver airport, but all of a sudden, every time somebody gets tasered it's in the news now. Now tasers are in the news, it seems, every day.
I think what we want to get at is to learn about the whole taser issue. If we get too narrow, maybe we won't be able to get at all of that from this motion. But I'm prepared to support it to get the ball rolling. Maybe we should—
3:55 p.m.
Conservative
Gord Brown Conservative Leeds—Grenville, ON
I just want to say, Mr. Chair, that maybe in establishing our witness list we can determine exactly what we want to do, and we would do that collectively, but the motion may be too restrictive in terms of giving us that flexibility.
3:55 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Garry Breitkreuz
I'm listening to the debate now. I've been taking into account what the last few speakers have just said.
What if we were to set this aside for a moment? We can go in camera, we can take a look at the schedule that has been prepared for us, and then we can come back. In essence, we're almost tabling the motion for the time being, and then we can come back. You can tighten up the motion and get the wording exactly as you wish, and then we can discuss it further, maybe on December 13.
Do I hear you say let's wait and think about this a little bit?
3:55 p.m.
Liberal
Ujjal Dosanjh Liberal Vancouver South, BC
I think we're all on the same page. We are a committee and we govern ourselves. If we believe, as we approach this issue and be more specific in terms of who to invite and who not to invite, that we have to add something or subtract something from this motion, we can do that.
I think this is a motion that's general enough when we have amended it to say it's the issues arising out of that incident.
The issue, Gord, is not just tasers. Tasers is one issue. The CBSA, the airport authorities, how they deal with people, Transport Canada--those are also important issues. Tasers are just one issue; tasers are not the only issue.
3:55 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Garry Breitkreuz
All right. Seeing as there are no more people who want to make any comments, I would ask that we make a decision now on this motion. Can you just clarify what the amendment is? I have five words here that you seem to be wishing to add.
3:55 p.m.
Liberal
Ujjal Dosanjh Liberal Vancouver South, BC
The amendment is to “study the issues arising out of the death of Robert Dziekanski”.
3:55 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Garry Breitkreuz
Do you wish to have a vote on this or just simply agree? Do you want to vote on it? Okay.
The vote is on the amendment, first of all.
