Evidence of meeting #29 for Public Safety and National Security in the 40th Parliament, 3rd session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was chair.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Liberal
Mark Holland Liberal Ajax—Pickering, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Perhaps I can help expedite things. Despite the talking points and the very lengthy prepared statements that were just read by government members, actually I support this motion, because it has absolutely nothing to do with what we're here today to talk about.
Let's go through the motion. First is to reject the call to promote the agenda of a violent mob. Let me be very clear. I think everybody condemns the violence that we saw in Toronto--
Liberal
Mark Holland Liberal Ajax—Pickering, ON
I'm speaking for myself. If there are some who don't feel that way, they can speak alternately.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Garry Breitkreuz
I'm sorry, Mr. Holland, we have a point of order that I have to recognize.
Ms. Mourani.
Bloc
Maria Mourani Bloc Ahuntsic, QC
Mr. Chair, I want to check something with you. We are indeed talking about the motion you just read, correct? If I understand correctly, Mr. Holland is referring to another motion that is not on the table.
Liberal
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Garry Breitkreuz
Okay.
Ms. Mourani, to answer your question, you have before you the agenda. On that agenda it clearly states that we are here to discuss whether we're going to undertake a study of the issues surrounding the G-8 and G-20 summits. That's what we're talking about.
Go ahead, Mr. Holland.
Liberal
Mark Holland Liberal Ajax—Pickering, ON
Mr. Chair, I have my issues with the process. We've had a debate. I'm anxious to move on. I disagree with the way the process has been conducted, but that's another issue.
The point here, as I understand it, is that we have no motion on the floor so we're talking in a general sense. What I'm offering to committee is an opportunity to expedite matters. Perhaps government members are under a confused impression about why we're here today.
Let me take the motion that is being proposed by Mr. MacKenzie in two parts. The first has to do with the actions of a number of individuals that were unforgivable, that attacked the city, and that I think all of us condemn in every possible way. I have no problem with that.
The second part of the motion is to commend front-line officers who were working in an exceptionally difficult circumstance. Well, I don't have a problem with that.
But the issue isn't front-line officers. The issue is a Prime Minister who put them there. The issue is with a Prime Minister who made a decision to put the G-20 in downtown Toronto. The issue is with a Prime Minister who decided to not even consult the City of Toronto on placing that summit in the heart of the city. The issue is with a Prime Minister who didn't bother to have a conversation with even the mayor until five minutes before this thing happened. The issue is that this was turned into a security nightmare. All of this was predictable; all of this we knew would happen.
That's the issue, folks. The issue is that the government spent $2 billion, the number might now reach, for security and other goodies related to this, and it became an absolute farce. The issue is that now the government is trying to use officers and the word “security” as a shield, as a way to avoid the word “accountability”. You can't just raise the spectre of our military or police and avoid accountability--avoid accountability for the decisions that were made and the consequences that happened.
I've lived in the greater Toronto region my entire life. I have never seen anything like what happened to our city. As I walked into that city and through its empty streets at the height of tourist season, as l looked at the entirely predictable outcomes unfold....I think no one could help but be disgusted at the way this was handled.
This isn't about front-line officers; it's about the terrible decisions that were made that led up to the complete mess that was the summit. You can put all of the talking points in the world around whatever you want to say, but the reality is that the legacy of this summit is one of waste and one of, frankly, displaying a city, a great city, in the most negative light I've ever seen it.
What I really have a problem with, and it is something that is done consistently, Mr. Chair, is the intellectual dishonesty with which the arguments are framed. Let me take the most recent example. It was just before this House rose, when we dealt with the issue of pardons. In the House of Commons, a member of this committee stood and said that I supported the notion that Karla Homolka should get a pardon. This was five minutes--
Conservative
Conservative
Dave MacKenzie Conservative Oxford, ON
Mr. Holland is on a bit of a rant here, but I don't know what the rant has to do with the issue before the committee.
Liberal
Mark Holland Liberal Ajax—Pickering, ON
Mr. Chairman, we were just talking about Haiti, from Mr. Calandra.
Conservative
Dave MacKenzie Conservative Oxford, ON
My point is that we've all agreed that we're supposed to deal with the issue on the order of the day. Whatever his issue is with respect to before the House rose, it has nothing to do with the matter here.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Garry Breitkreuz
Mr. Holland, I'm sure you'll explain how this relates to what we're talking about.
Liberal
Mark Holland Liberal Ajax—Pickering, ON
Let me be extremely clear on how it relates: it is absolutely no different from what has transpired today. Government members are coming forward and saying that somehow those who are in the opposition support violent mobs. Give me a break. They're saying that somehow we don't support front-line officers. Give me a break.
Shame on you. Shame on you for going that low when you know full well that we came here today to talk about the debacle that this whole summit thing became, to talk about what transpired in Toronto. That's what we're here to discuss. And clearly, because you spent nearly half an hour discussing it, you've got a great deal to hide and worry about.
Well, let's make a favour for everyone. Let's get to actually the business of setting the agenda. If you want to vote on this motion, which has nothing to do, frankly, with the reason we're here today, let's do it. I'll vote for it. Then let's get on to the real questions and let's have a real debate. But let's not waste all of our time with these silly talking points.
Conservative
Bob Dechert Conservative Mississauga—Erindale, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
As a member of Parliament from the Toronto area, I have to say that I was also very saddened watching the footage of the violent protests in Toronto during the G-20 summit. Along with most Canadians and most residents of the Toronto area, I was shocked to see the violence taking place in what I consider to be a magnificent and typically peaceful city of Toronto. I join with the vast majority of Canadians in condemning these senseless acts of violence and the wanton destruction of property.
I'm also grateful that the injuries to all parties were minor. As Toronto City Council recently did, I also want to commend the outstanding work of our security forces leading up to and during the G-20 summit.
The security plan was developed by Canada's best experts in the field. The integrated security unit and its partners, such as the Toronto Police Service, had a comprehensive approach to security planning. In light of the violent mob made up of thugs, hooligans, and anarchists, this approach proved to be both necessary and essential.
The antics employed by such groups as these thugs, hooligans, and anarchists are, in my view, deplorable. These thugs, hooligans, and anarchists are obviously not representative of Canadian society, and I know that the citizens of Toronto and Canadians alike are appalled by their criminal actions.
There have been unsubstantiated allegations—and I stress that these are allegations—of problems surrounding the security at the G-8 and G-20 summits. I find it concerning that the opposition is willing to bypass the processes and bodies already in place to determine if these allegations are grounded in fact or on baseless accusations. Giving voice and prominence to groups such as these thugs, hooligans, and anarchists will circumvent the processes that are in place to determine if allegations actually have a basis in fact.
We know that the Ontario ombudsman, the Toronto police review board, the Office of the Independent Police Review Director, and the special investigative unit of Ontario are all involved in different capacities in reviewing the actions of police.
All Canadians were shocked to see the violence that was perpetrated by these thugs, and we must all consider how giving these extremists a public forum to defend their violent deeds could impact the police investigations and other independent investigations that are currently under way.
Mr. Chair, we stand up for our front-line police officers and for the safety of Canadians. We do not stand up for thugs who sought to threaten public safety and destroy property during the G-20 summit in Toronto, which was an opportunity for our country to showcase the Toronto area and our nation before the world. I think we did that. For those reasons, I think we're doing Canadians a disservice here today.
Thank you.
Conservative
Liberal
Andrew Kania Liberal Brampton West, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Chair, I'm going to address this through a practical analysis. I have four main points.
One, I support the Conservative Party's motion to commend front-line police officers and reject calls to promote the agendas of violent mobs. We can vote on it at any time you want, and I will support it. But that's not why we're here today. We're here today to decide whether we're going to undertake a study to examine all issues with respect to the G-8 and the G-20.
When I speak to my constituents, there are two main things they say to me. They ask why we spent $1.2 billion or more on this summit. We could have done so many different things with this money. We could have, for example, put the money into further economic incentives. Everybody knows that the April numbers came out, and GDP is zero, and that we're not out of this recession, despite what's been done so far by the government. With regard to EI changes, they tacked on some additional weeks for “good workers”. We could have done something else. Day care, tax cuts, education, health care—there are so many different things we could have done with $1.2 billion. Why did we not do those things instead?
The London, England, 2009 G-20 cost $30 million. Why did this cost $1.2 billion? It's a good question.
Next they ask me why, if you spent $1.2 billion at a minimum, it was such a mess. They want to find out exactly why this took place. Why was it in downtown Toronto? There had been a suggestion to use the CNE grounds. Why was that not accepted? The G-8 and the G-20 were divided between Huntsville and Toronto, which made no logical sense and drove up the costs. Why was that decision made?
You had a lot of waste. There were washrooms built in towns very far from the centre of Huntsville, for example, that nobody would ever use for the summit. That's not even logical. So they say let's examine this to determine why so much money was spent. Second, even under the circumstance that so much money was spent, why was it such a mess?
Now, I'm going to end there after this one brief point, because I don't want to go on and on. I don't have talking points that I'm going to read through.
We've had the experience in this committee of Conservative members filibustering, in essence, so that we wouldn't get to a vote, and we wouldn't get to make a decision. We have an hour left today. This is a special meeting. Canadians need to know. I would ask, please, that we get to a vote, that we make a decision as to whether we are having a study, and we start putting a nature to this rather than just reading talking points. If we don't get to a vote, and we don't make that decision, Canadians need to know. This has happened before, and there's been a continual Conservative filibuster to avoid making these decisions and getting to the actual crux of the matter.
Thank you.
Conservative
Phil McColeman Conservative Brant, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I've listened to the arguments, and in light of the arguments presented the one thing that's very clear is that our side, the government, has been accused of reading talking points here today. I can't imagine some of the things that have been said on the other side that aren't exactly that, time after time after time. In light of the arguments proposed, I think most of us on this committee would agree to hold a meeting, and we'd agree as soon as practical after the House convenes, because that would allow the independent work that's going on right now not to be duplicated by this committee.
I think it would be relevant for this committee to undertake that when the House convenes, because it would mean we would be here in Ottawa. It would mean no expense to the taxpayer to fly someone from the west--or in the case of the person who didn't show up here today and who proposed this motion, flying in from Vancouver--and the costs that are entailed to hold a committee meeting like this. Canadians should know that.
I don't think there's any disagreement that we should not be looking into and being accountable for all of the issues around the G-8 and do that analysis and submit our thoughts as we normally would as a committee. But this interruption of our constituency work, which most of us are heavily involved with and have responsibilities to do, is absolutely unnecessary, because there are studies going on currently in the Toronto police.
Do I think Canadians were happy with the results to host the G-8 and G-20? The feedback I'm getting is yes, they were very happy. I also think they were horrified by the actions of the thugs. So I think we can all agree on that. Polls would indicate that the support of the public for the police is exceptionally high, in the very difficult situations they had to deal with.
On a personal level, I live in the neighbourhood of the police chief locally and a member of the OPP, who were involved in the security of these summits. When I talk personally with them on the street, I tell you there were some extenuating circumstances that were very difficult to deal with. They should be commended. We commend them. Toronto City Council commended them, and we should do the same.
We hosted the world's most influential leaders, and we are morally and legally obligated to protect them. During summits we advanced our positions, and that's what's been articulated here, what Canada articulated. Canada went in and set the goals to do. We came out on every one with top marks, and we're looked at by our international partners to be, if not the leading country in the world on economic policy, real close to being the leader.
To me, today is all about the politics and the optics that the opposition has wanted to present to the public on this, unnecessarily. We need to get back to work on this issue when we get back to Parliament. We need to have the facts in front of us that are brought together by the independent parties that are studying them now. We do not need to duplicate their work. We do not need to cost Canadian taxpayers more money with these committee meetings, having to travel to Ottawa, having to take the time and the resources of Parliament to do this.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Garry Breitkreuz
Thank you.
Just to remind the committee, we are hopefully going to come to the point where we're going to make a decision on whether to undertake a study. I see there's support on both sides. So that's just to make that clear.
Mr. Dewar.
NDP
Paul Dewar NDP Ottawa Centre, ON
Thank you for the reminder, Mr. Chair.
Obviously we want to get to that matter. We have a witness here. I would follow in the same line as Mr. McColeman, in that we're here, and we can hear witnesses. So I guess he would be happy to hear witnesses today, in that light.
Mr. Chair, I have to say, though, that I didn't know that Amnesty International was an anarchist group. I was entirely unaware of the civil liberties union of Canada as being supporters of thugs. These are the people who want to have an inquiry, and by the government's logic, those who want to have an inquiry are somehow associated with anarchy.
That's a doozer, Mr. Chair. They were burning the midnight oil a little too late last night, I think, putting out the talking points, because that's not believable. What is believable... And in fact they should talk to their good friend Randy Hillier. I don't know if they read the article today, but I think most people have. Their friend Randy Hillier thinks there should be accountability.
Mr. Chair, when you have a thousand people arrested, the biggest mass arrest in Canadian history, someone has to be accountable. I think the accountability is with those who decided to have the G-8 and G-20. It wasn't the mayor. It wasn't Mr. Blair. It wasn't you. It was your government. That's who's accountable.
This is a committee of Parliament. Our job is to hold government to account. The G-8 and G-20 was an initiative of the federal government. Over $1.5 billion to date has been spent, and they don't want to be held accountable. But everyone else should be held accountable.
The whole G-8 and G-20 was what, Mr. Chair...? You remember; you remember your talking points: it was the accountability meetings where we were going to be accountable to the world. Well, isn't that just great--accountable to the world but not accountable to Canadians. And that's what this motion is about.
So please, you know...“thugs”, “anarchists”, the rhetoric, associating that with people who stand up for civil liberties, associating that with Amnesty International and with people who went out to demonstrate peacefully and who want to know what happened, what went wrong.
This cost $1.5 billion. I can quote you from Hansard every one of those members who said we had to spend this money so that we could have a secure meeting.
Well, it didn't happen, guys. It didn't. No: a thousand people were arrested, and they don't know why. A gentleman with a prosthesis had his leg taken away. Something went desperately wrong, and we have to find out what went wrong.
That's what this motion is about. It's not about what you're hearing from the other side, Mr. Chair. It's about accountability. It's about civil liberties in this country. It's about who has them and when we have them.
On June 24 it was reported that police had special powers to stop, search, and arrest anyone without proper ID within five metres of the summit fence. On June 25 police realized they had misinterpreted the rule, which only applies to five metres within the fence. That same day, the supposed new police powers were widely reported to the media. On June 29, only after the summit was over, Chief Blair clarified that the rule never existed. On July 9, the ombudsman, André Marin, announced that his office was investigating the origin of the communications.
Who's accountable here, Mr. Chair? No one, I guess, from the government's side. Hey, it's always someone else. Well, today it's this committee. We need to vote on this motion. We need to hear from our witness.
Thank you.