Evidence of meeting #1 for Public Safety and National Security in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was chair.
A recording is available from Parliament.
11:25 a.m.
A voice
We don't need that. It's part of the standing orders.
11:25 a.m.
Liberal
11:25 a.m.
Liberal
Pam Damoff Liberal Oakville North—Burlington, ON
“That government bills take precedence over all other work of the committee” be deleted.
11:25 a.m.
An hon. member
We don't have to delete it.
11:25 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Rob Oliphant
We just don't adopt it. There is no motion, then, on the priority of government legislation.
Mr. O'Toole.
11:25 a.m.
Conservative
Erin O'Toole Conservative Durham, ON
Mr. Chair, congratulations on your first unanimous, very harmonious session here. It's invigorating.
But as per your comment that you're the chair for all members, since we have such an esteemed group here, I think we should use this time to talk committee business for a few moments just because we're on the edge of a constituency week. As some of the newer members may appreciate, we've talked about providing travel and expenses for witnesses, but often when you're getting law professors and union leaders and these sorts of thought leaders, scheduling is a real challenge. My suggestion would be that we at least talk about committee business so that by next week some invitations can go out to witnesses to appear. Otherwise, we essentially lose a month of time. If we go into this two weeks from now, you then have a lag of two weeks to get in people's schedules to have them appear before our committee.
The official opposition feels there are two issues that deserve attention by this committee, the first is the Senate report from June on terrorism and radicalization, which I think explored a number of very interesting and important public policy issues, the second is the security screening of the Syrian refugee initiative. Our preference is in those two orders because the Senate committee spent considerable time on their report, and it was issued as the last Parliament wound up. I think it would behoove our committee to call some witnesses in relation to some of the findings, or on the Syrian issue, which has certainly been a priority of the new government and has received a lot of public attention. Security screening is a concern of many Canadians.
My recommendation would be that the committee decide our first issue of examination, and then the parties submit witnesses by next Wednesday so that we can start substantive meetings within a week or so of returning from our constituency week.
11:30 a.m.
Liberal
Marco Mendicino Liberal Eglinton—Lawrence, ON
Mr. Chair, having just listened to my colleague's suggestion, I think one of the things we might consider doing as a committee is to have the subcommittee on agenda and procedure struck with its full complement. Pursuant to the language of the second routine motion, which was put forth this morning, we could have the two government members elected or appointed or acclaimed. Then that subcommittee could meet to discuss some of the priorities that Mr. O'Toole has just mentioned.
11:30 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Rob Oliphant
Just to comment, under the motion we will have two government members. They could rotate, but I believe the government side has picked a couple of members to be on that committee at this time, so they would attend on behalf of the five of you.
We have a proposal, then, that we have a review of a Senate report and a consideration of a topic. We have a counter-proposal that those would go to the agenda committee to discuss and then come back to this committee with a recommendation on our agenda.
11:30 a.m.
Liberal
Marco Mendicino Liberal Eglinton—Lawrence, ON
I think that's exactly right, Mr. Chair. I think it makes sense from the point of view of having a steering committee that prioritizes the business of this committee.
11:30 a.m.
Conservative
Erin O'Toole Conservative Durham, ON
Mr. Chair, with respect to my friend's suggestion, a subcommittee on agenda is essentially meant to be in place for forward-looking business, as the committee is seized with things and as members of Parliament are torn in various different directions with demands. We have the whole committee here, as opposed to a subcommittee. Agendas are fairly light. We're on Bill C-4 in terms of the legislative calendar, so why would we defer to a smaller group of this group to set the first agenda topic?
I'm suggesting we choose the first agenda topic, so that we can get witness names in by next week. I'm not saying you have to pull them out of your briefcase today. I'm saying next week, so that we can have some substantive hearings within a few weeks. I think Canadians expect that.
Some committees, in my experience, did not really use the subcommittee if the committee talked committee business on a regular basis. We have everyone here. This is our suggestion. In fact, we've put two items up for the group to have consensus on. I think we'd all agree that both subjects are issues that Canadians would like a committee to look into in some detail. Rather than defer this to a smaller group of this group, why don't we take a moment, come up with how many hearing days we think the topic would need, and then submit witnesses by next Wednesday?
I think it's a reasonable request, Mr. Chair.
11:35 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Rob Oliphant
I remind members that we are in a public meeting right now, and often committee business is discussed in camera to make those decisions. If committee members wanted to go in camera, we could do that. I just wanted to alert new members to this. Committees do that differently. Often there are public meetings and then committee business is done in camera.
11:35 a.m.
Conservative
Erin O'Toole Conservative Durham, ON
Mr. Chair, with respect to that, and with respect to the sunshine of sunny ways, I think agenda topics should not be in camera. Maybe my friend from the NDP might have a suggestion in that regard. I don't suggest we plan our agenda for the entire session. All I'm saying is let's put an important subject on our radar for when we return, so that we can start the process of allowing the clerk and the analysts to make sure we reach out to key witnesses.
11:35 a.m.
NDP
Matthew Dubé NDP Beloeil—Chambly, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I have a small concern, which brings me to ask my Conservative colleagues whether they have a motion. After all, the length of studies is an important issue. Nothing is currently on the agenda. I appreciate them wanting to start something, so that we would have work to do.
I'm also happy to see how appreciative the Conservatives now are of committee work. I will take it where I can.
That being said, my concern over the length of studies just has to do with the fact that we will start discussing other topics. I wouldn't want us to get trapped in very long studies on certain topics, just in case we have to look into other matters, even bills, over the next few weeks.
As for the steering committee, I do have one concern with that, and I will echo Mr. O'Toole's concern, which is when we would meet. We're already at Thursday, and we're going back to our constituency. By the time a steering committee meeting could be scheduled, we will be back in Ottawa two weeks from now.
11:35 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Rob Oliphant
Could I just review where we are with that? We have a proposal to have two immediate studies. We could choose one or the other to begin. We have a proposal that it go to the subcommittee on agenda.
I think I'm hearing that we perhaps defer until a further meeting, but not that we do it by an agenda committee.
11:35 a.m.
NDP
Matthew Dubé NDP Beloeil—Chambly, QC
If I may, Chair, perhaps something was lost in translation. I'm just wondering if the Conservatives have a text for their motion and have a specific prescription for these studies in mind, so that we don't get trapped in a never-ending study on a particular issue, given that anything could pop up over the next weeks and months.
11:35 a.m.
Conservative
Erin O'Toole Conservative Durham, ON
Through you, Mr. Chair, certainly this was intended to be committee business, which does not require a motion and a discussion. My one failing in this is that I should have tabled this in a report, so I offer my apologies. But we can get copies in both official languages to the clerk.
As I said, it was published in June, and I'm sure our keen members of this committee on all sides have already been devouring this important report anyway. We could table that report, and the recommendations could form the substance of probably four to five meetings. We would work with the clerk on witness allocation.
11:35 a.m.
Liberal
Pam Damoff Liberal Oakville North—Burlington, ON
Those are two important issues.
I can think of a long list of other equally important issues for this committee to look at. I would rather we did it well than in a rush, and that we picked issues that all of us can agree are important. While those are two important issues, I think we need time to look at some other issues and decide what we, as a committee, want to do. I think the right place to do that is on the subcommittee. Then that decision can be brought back to us and we can make a decision on a number of issues, not just two.
I think we need to really think long and hard about what issues we as a committee want to look at. There are a number of others. I could list which ones are important to me personally, but I'm not going to do that, because there are quite a few. I think we need to look at all of them and, as a committee, decide which are best. I think the best place to start that is on the subcommittee.