Public Safety Committee on Feb. 23rd, 2016

[Don Head]

I cannot stress enough how important that is. My staff, on any given day, face unbelievable situations that have tremendous impacts on their mental resilience. The way we talk about it now is on how we build and sustain the mental resilience of our staff who have, as I would argue, one of the toughest jobs in the federal public service.

We've started to work with the Mental Health Commission of Canada on delivering what is called the Road to Mental Readiness training to all our staff across the country. This is a first step in building up that capacity. It is more than just the usual employment assistance program kind of thing; it is specific to the issue of mental resilience.

If this committee were to take on anything along those lines, I would be glad to be.... I don't like offering to come back to committee, but this is one area I would love to come and talk to you about. I could share with you personal experiences of my staff and experiences of my own and describe what needs to be done to support individuals who deal with some very traumatic incidents.

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

Okay.

I have one quick question from when you were talking about budget freezes.

I understand there are clients who require programs while they're in correctional services, but you won't or can't provide them because of cutbacks. In order to get parole, they have to have completed these programs, and they're a bit stuck between the organizations. I was told the John Howard Society would provide them if they had the funding to do it.

Is either of you aware of this kind of issue with getting people out of correctional services and back into the community and rehabilitated?

[Don Head]

There are a couple of issues there. The research is clear that delivering programs for low-risk offenders will not do anything. The research shows clearly that we run the risk of pushing them in the wrong direction. We have stopped providing those kinds of programs to low-risk offenders.

One of the discussions the chair and I have is how to position the work those offenders do while they're incarcerated in front of the board so they can make a decision for release, knowing the program isn't needed or required. That's one of the issues or challenges that—

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

It sounds as though they are caught in limbo between the two, because they haven't done these programs and they therefore don't qualify for release. Is that...?

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

I'm afraid I have to cut you off.

I think I'm hearing a standing invitation to both of you, because we have lots to talk about.

I want to thank you on behalf of the committee, both for your expertise and for your ongoing public service.

Committee, we'll just say goodbye to the witnesses, and then very quickly we have to get into a discussion on the motion.

Let's get going, because I understand Mr. Miller has a commitment right away.

Mr. O'Toole, I give you the floor.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The notice of motion is in front of you in both languages. Because of the urgency of time, you can read it yourself. Do I have to read it for the record?

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

Yes.

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

The motion is:

That the Committee undertake a study of no fewer than 6 meetings on the phenomenon of the radicalization of refugees, permanent residents and Canadians within Canada; that the committee call witnesses that are community organization leaders, academics and official experts to speak on the threat of radicalization and counter-radicalization strategies; that the committee travel to visit 1 anti-radicalization centre; that the committee make recommendations; and that the committee report its findings to the House.

As my colleagues know, this is something that we have wanted to look at from the first instance. Each week there seems to be more urgent need, and this is continuing to come into focus, whether it's the story of the 12 women who travelled overseas or the announcement of the polysyllabic organization that Mr. Mendicino spoke about or Ban Ki-moon touring through one of these centres. I think that as the public safety committee we should do the same thing so that we can learn, see, and make recommendations to Parliament for addressing this issue and countering it.

I'm hoping we can get this on the agenda quite quickly.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

I open this motion up for discussion.

Just signal to me if you want to speak. We have Mr. Dubé and then Mr. Mendicino, and then we'll continue.

Go ahead, Mr. Dubé.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

There is a first time for everything, because I agree with my Conservative colleagues. I don't particularly like the wording of the motion, which puts the radicalization of refugees first, because the cases we have heard about mainly involved people who were already living in Canada. Aside from that argument about the wording, the NDP has been clear from the start. We believe that there is a serious lack of measures to counter radicalization here in Canada.

I appreciate that the motion provides that the committee will visit a counter-radicalization centre. I assume that the centre in Montreal would be a good option. That is the kind of work we should be doing. It is a good way to combat ISIL here at home. I therefore support the motion by my colleague, Mr. O'Toole.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

Mr. Mendicino is next.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

First, to a certain extent I agree that this issue has come up. We've heard about counter-radicalization from some of the witnesses.

Mr. O'Toole said that he wanted to have the matter discussed very quickly. I suggest we adjourn debate on this matter until the next meeting, at which time we can consider this motion along with some of the other priorities that have emerged within the context of the witnesses and the briefings that we've received from senior officials.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

Is that a motion you're making to adjourn?

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

Yes, it is.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

I believe that's not debatable. Am I correct on that?

We have a motion on the floor that does not adjourn the meeting; it adjourns the debate on the motion, and it puts it into the next meeting, which we would call for Thursday to do committee business and discuss all options for work.

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

That's correct. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

It's not debatable, so I will immediately call the question.

Do we have agreement to adjourn the debate on the motion until the next meeting?

(Motion agreed to: yeas 5, nays 4)

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

We will revisit this motion on Thursday.

Mr. Mendicino, just before you leave, I want to check something.

Normally a subcommittee on agenda and procedure is meant to speed up the work of the committee. We would normally meet as a subcommittee during a study, for instance, to continue committee work to get things done. My thought is—and I want to check it with the committee, as I could call either one—that we would meet as a whole committee on Thursday to do committee business, because if we have a subcommittee meeting it could actually slow down this work. That is because the subcommittee would have to take time for the clerk to write a report, and then we would have to consider the report. I'm worried that we would actually debate the same issues in the full committee as we do at the subcommittee.

I would like a nodding of agreement or a “no” that we have a full committee meeting on Thursday. Mr. O'Toole's motion will be considered first at that meeting. Because we will be in a meeting of committee business, we don't need the 48 hours' notice, so if members have studies or concerns or things that they think the committee should be doing in the next couple of weeks or months, they should be prepared to offer their motions.

I think we'll design a process whereby we look at several motions and then choose one to begin with, and maybe set out two or three pieces of work to help the analysts begin their work plan for where we'll be going between now and June.

Is it agreed—I'm getting a kind of nodding—that we'll have a business meeting, then, on Thursday?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

Okay.

The meeting is adjourned.