Public Safety Committee on June 17th, 2010

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

We are moving into a public hearing.

I want to make it clear that this motion was one that I ruled inadmissible. A motion of censure by a statement is not possible at a committee. Committees do not have the authority to condemn the behaviour or statements by a member.

I just want to apprise the committee of that. I won't read the whole thing.

We will continue now with Mr. MacKenzie.

[Borys Wrzesnewskyj, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

I have another point of order, Mr. Chair.

Thank you for the clarification. I think it's important that you did that in public, so the public is aware of it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

You cannot interrupt another member on a point of order.

[Borys Wrzesnewskyj, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

I am making a point of order.

You had just completed your background on what it is we're dealing with and how we've arrived at this point.

On a point of order, on your comments, Mr. Chair, I believe for further clarity it is important, now that we're in public, that the motion be read so that we know what the matter is that we're seized with in this committee.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

I'm sorry, you're out of order, Mr. Wrzesnewskyj. We've dealt with all that. We are now in public, and the only thing that changes is that Mr. MacKenzie will now make his comments in public.

Go ahead, Mr. MacKenzie.

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

Mr. Chair, with respect to what this issue is about—

[Maria Mourani, Bloc, Ahuntsic, QC]

Mr. Chair, I have a point of order.

Mr. Chair, we discussed this motion in our last meeting. As you will remember, Mr. Rathgeber was talking and had finished talking.

[Phil McColeman, Conservative, Brant, ON]

A point of order, Mr. Chair.

[Maria Mourani, Bloc, Ahuntsic, QC]

So we were discussing the motion and I had put my name on the list.

[Phil McColeman, Conservative, Brant, ON]

A point of order, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Ms. Mourani, I have a speakers' list. I have Mr. MacKenzie, Ms. Glover, Mr. Kania, Mr. Norlock, Ms. Mourani, and Mr. Davies on my speaking list.

We will go through that speaking list.

[Maria Mourani, Bloc, Ahuntsic, QC]

Oh, we are talking about the motion.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

You have a point of order, Mr. McColeman.

[Phil McColeman, Conservative, Brant, ON]

I would remind the member across that we had an in camera meeting. This is totally inappropriate now that we are not in camera.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Right. You cannot talk about things that were in camera.

[Maria Mourani, Bloc, Ahuntsic, QC]

Excuse me, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Let's have some order. Mr. MacKenzie has the floor.

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

Mr. Chair, first off, you were absolutely right to rule it out of order. The intent of this whole thing is to try to embarrass somebody. It has been brought here for purely partisan political reasons.

Unfortunately, the proposer of the motion obviously hasn't read the blues. What he's alleging is not in the blues. He has a different opinion of what was said there. I would like to take him back to read some of the blues, to go though what we heard from witnesses who were here. Obviously he has not done that kind of investigation.

We heard from several police officers, including Sergeant Duane Rutledge, who said:

I am disappointed that this issue has become so political in this country. I've heard the chiefs of police quoted here and also the Canadian association of professional police. To my knowledge, my members, where I'm at, were not polled by the Canadian Police Association for their viewpoint on this. Many people have been, in an attempt to muzzle them

--I would hope my colleague would listen--

from giving their full views on this issue. It's something that's uncalled for in this country. As I said, everyone should have the ability to speak their opinion

--as Ms. Glover should--

regardless of which side you stand on, and when someone says they represent someone, they should represent those people by actually polling them and getting their full views....My own chief was outspoken about this. He was scheduled to testify here, and now he's not testifying....Inflammatory remarks by members of those organizations referring to policemen who disagree with this as anonymous, donut-eating, sitting-in-the-coffeeshop police officers is uncalled for, and there's no need for it, either at this level or at the level of representing the chiefs of police or the Canadian Police Association.

That was a quote taken from Chief Blair's original letter.

I would also take the member's attention to another police officer, Mr. Jack Tinsley. He indicated the following about an article he'd written:

The article was in fact published in 1999 in the Winnipeg Sun. However, quite some time prior to that happening, I provided a copy to the chief of police out of courtesy, and his reply was, “I respect your opinion, but I do not agree.” His reply goes on to instruct me not to associate the article in any way with the Winnipeg Police Service. Subsequently, I spent the last nine years of my career as an inspector, with the exception of a couple of months in a district in the duty office on shift work. That's about seven years longer than any other inspector that I'm aware of.

Was this being disciplined or the career suicide I had been cautioned against? That's my guess, but I said what I felt needed to be said and I've never regretted it.

Other police officers appeared before us, including Sergeant Murray Grismer, who said:

Therefore, ipso facto, I also represent the opinion of thousands of police officers across Canada who are, in my opinion, the silent majority and, for some, the silenced majority: not only police officers who have been ordered not to speak out against the long-gun registry but also officers who fear for their careers should they voice an opinion publicly in opposition to continuation of the registry or against the position adopted by the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, their chief of police, or commanding officer.

Quite frankly, Chair, you are absolutely right: this committee does not have the authority or the position to deal with this kind of issue. It shouldn't have been brought here. It was done, as I said, purely for partisan political reasons in an attempt to embarrass someone.

If Chief Blair had an issue with that, I would have expected that Chief Blair, who knows quite well how to deal with these issues, would have written to the member, would have written to the party, would have written to this committee.

For the member opposite to take it upon himself to try to do this--it's just pure wrong. It's just trying to use this committee for his own personal, or his party's, reasons. I think, with all due respect, this situation is one that should never have gotten here.

If the other side had confidence in the chair when he made that decision...this was long gone, and I think it should have been long gone. What the member has done here now is to bring the committee into a position of some disrepute in trying to deal with these things where it has no power and no authority.

Mr. Chair, I would say to you that if you went back and read the statement from the president of the CACP, who happens to be Chief Blair, he says “every 'real cop' knows we don't approach every situation, and every citizen, with the assumption they're armed”, but he does say in there the situation I referred to. They are all real cops, not the anonymous and, most likely, imaginary cop in the “donut shop”. We have police officers who say they are real cops and they did not appreciate this. They didn't go to Chief Blair, to the Toronto Police Service, and ask him to retract that. They might have, but they didn't because they are bigger than that and they've moved on.

If Chief Blair has a problem, I know the chief is quite capable of bringing his issue to this committee. Why the member opposite feels the need to do that just defies logic. The end of the story is I don't know where he thinks he goes with it. This committee has no power to discipline anybody. This isn't the place for it in the first place.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Thank you.

I have five speakers left on my list: Ms. Glover, Mr. Kania, Mr. Norlock, Ms. Mourani, and Mr. Davies.

Ms. Glover, please.

[Borys Wrzesnewskyj, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

On a point of order, Chair--

[Shelly Glover, Conservative, Saint Boniface, MB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm pleased to speak to this--if he'll ever give me a chance.

[Borys Wrzesnewskyj, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Mr. MacKenzie said this was an attempt to discipline. It's quite clear, if you read the text, that that is not correct.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

You are out of order.

[Borys Wrzesnewskyj, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

What it calls--

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

That is out of order.

This meeting is adjourned.