Public Safety Committee on Feb. 4th, 2016

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

Mr. O'Toole.

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Durham, ON]

Mr. Chair, I certainly agree with my colleague that it could be a very healthy agenda for this committee, which is an important one for Canada.

That said, we don't start devouring that healthy complement of work until we actually get our first number of witnesses. In fairness, she may not know, but doing that sometimes takes some weeks once witness names are submitted. We've already had several months of Parliament during which this committee has not sat. I'm just trying to make sure that we make this an effective use of our time.

I'm not saying what our agenda will be for the entire session. If we don't want to start the process on just one agenda item, the alternative would be that since all of us have the two hours of this committee booked, we could adjourn and have an instant meeting of the subcommittee right now and discuss the same issues.

The point I tried to make to my friend earlier was that the subcommittee is intended to be a smaller group that you can get together to move forward on a working basis. Since we have the whole group here, with no agenda and a very light legislative calendar, why would we not at least pick the first topic of examination? If that's not the consensus, I'd be happy to adjourn this meeting and have the subcommittee meet to do the same thing.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

I'm hearing that some members of the committee are not ready to engage in the agenda discussion yet, and would like some time to think about it. It could then either go to the subcommittee or come to the first committee meeting after the break.

I'm think I'm hearing from members who have not been in the previous government, or who have not had committee experience, that they're looking for more time. I'm hearing also from someone who has ideas that they want to get going on. I respect both of those.

I also am hearing Mr. Dubé saying that the subcommittee probably cannot meet until the following week after

the break week.

We would take time in the next seven days to plan some agenda items. We could have a full in camera meeting at our first meeting after the break week to discuss our agenda over the next several months.

I would remind you that our Parliament actually was convened weeks after the last election, unlike the new government that was formed in 2006, which took several months after they formed government to come back. So I think we're not delaying; we're actually a very proactive Parliament and a proactive government.

I sense, though, that committee members are asking for some time to engage in what the issues should be. The real question may be this: does that go to a subcommittee that meets between now and a week from Tuesday, or do we plan our first meeting after the break week and do agenda?

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Oakville North—Burlington, ON]

I like the idea of it coming back to the full committee, at our first meeting back. We can all have a discussion on the items that we think the committee should look at. Then we can go from there.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

Would you like to make that a motion?

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Oakville North—Burlington, ON]

I move that the full committee meet on Tuesday, February 16.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

Would that be an in camera meeting or a public meeting?

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Oakville North—Burlington, ON]

I'll defer on that, because I'm not sure which is better for this.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

We could decide that on the day of; that is appropriate as well. You could leave that out of the motion, if you'd like.

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Oakville North—Burlington, ON]

Okay. Let's leave it out of the motion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

There's a motion that we plan a full meeting to discuss our work plan on Tuesday, February 16.

Mr. Dubé.

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

I am okay with that, but I would like to clarify something we have not discussed.

The beauty of the subcommittee, when it comes to the agenda, is that it enables us to meet outside normal committee hours and, consequently, save the committee some time, especially by eliminating endless debates like this one today.

Does the committee want to take advantage of that flexibility in order to use the committee at large, if I may use that expression, to tackle more concrete proposals so as to gain some efficiency?

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

Does your proposal have to do with the amount of time this kind of a meeting takes?

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

No, not really, but I would maybe like to have something clarified.

I know from experience that, over the past few years, other committees have operated in this way. I am wondering what yours and my other colleagues' intentions are.

Basically, I am wondering what the use of the subcommittee is if its meetings are always held at the same time as the committee's meetings.

[Nicola Di Iorio, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

Mr. Chair, if I may, I would like to say something.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

Mr. Di lorio, go ahead.

[Nicola Di Iorio, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I appreciate my colleague's comments. I want to point out that those two things are not mutually exclusive. Our colleague said that she was leaving it open only for the first meeting. We will figure out a way to do things, learn to work together, to know each other and to develop our own ways and customs. We are individuals motivated by a deep desire to carry out productive and effective work in the service of Canadians.

My colleague's comment was not about the first meeting. My colleague can be reassured that the subcommittee will be able to hold meetings. Based on the discussions we have had, it is already planned that the subcommittee can meet at times other than those set for the actual committee's meetings.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

Mr. Spengemann.

[Sven Spengemann, Liberal, Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm favourable to my colleague's motion. Those issues will give us an opportunity to reconnect with our constituents.

We're all newly elected members. Some of us are re-elected members to the committee. We can connect at home and see what the temperature is on the two subjects that were introduced by Mr. O'Toole, but also the rest of the basket. There are some very important, intensive discussions going on in the communities on a number of projects that this committee is very well positioned to address. Without seeking delay for the sake of having extra time, I would support the step of reconnecting with our constituents during this coming week and then having a more informed view of what Canadians would like this committee to address in the short term.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

If I can just review, we have a motion on the floor that we meet on Tuesday, February 16, to discuss future business.

That does not preclude a meeting of the subcommittee en avance. We could do a subcommittee meeting. However, the motion on the floor is that we have a meeting on the 16th to discuss business.

Mr. O'Toole.

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Durham, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I enjoyed your commentary at the outset about being chair for all. I don't think comparison of when the 2006 government returned to when this government returned helps the conversation, but your point was that the government did form in November and called Parliament back. Now essentially we have had three months of inaction on this committee. My modest proposal is to start the witness collection for at least the first topic. I don't think I would need to consult my constituents to say terrorism and issues related to radicalization are some things that the public safety committee should be seized with.

There might be differences of opinion on whether it would be first versus third, but my proposal was to make sure that we start allowing the time to have witnesses prepared and contacted. Otherwise we will have to explain to his constituents and to mine why this committee has not sat on a substantive basis for over four months, approaching half a year. With a number of agenda items, as my friend mentioned earlier, why would we not start at least to get the first one rolling? To be fair, that's why the Conservative Party brought two subjects. This is not to say it's our way or the highway, but it would allow the time for preparations so that by March we would at least get to hear a few witnesses. If we build in a few more weeks of delay so that people can consult, we essentially are looking at nothing substantive until April and that concerns the official opposition.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

I think we've heard that now a few times.

Any new thoughts on this topic?

Mr. Mendicino.

[Marco Mendicino, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

I'm going to propose that we call a vote.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

I want to make sure that there aren't thoughts that have not been expressed.

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Durham, ON]

I have more commentary to add before we go to a vote, Mr. Chair.

The one suggestion I did propose that was perhaps lost in the wider discussion on this first topic was the fact that I'm assuming we have the full committee time booked in all our schedules. All members of this committee are here. We've done the routine business. Why would we not adjourn and have the subcommittee meet now to be proactive, then we can have a more detailed discussion of the agenda? It could be in camera. That would be a motion I put forward, which I think would be a better use of all our time.