Public Safety Committee on Sept. 21st, 2017

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

Some did and some didn't. In fact a lot didn't.

I'm sorry, Mr. Chair, I wasn't recognized. My apologies.

[Glen Motz, Conservative, Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB]

Would it just be an information session for us, to see whether it fits what we think should be available to the law enforcement and public officers in our country?

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

We did hear testimony on it when we did our study. Some are using it; some are not. To be frank, certainly there are mixed feelings on it within the public safety community. As a tool for public safety officers, we determined in the report that it was a valuable tool. It wasn't a solution. I know that I continue to be approached by the public safety community on various issues to do with this. It's something that certainly the minister is very committed to and that we as a committee have been quite committed to.

I think it would be useful for us, when we are approached by public safety officers talking about this, to have some knowledge of what it's all about. Quite frankly, I've read about it, and I have a general sense of what it is, but.... It's not just policing. Fire, corrections officers, and RCMP are using it, but not all services are using it. Not all individuals get trained in it.

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Chair, having a briefing about it next Tuesday is no problem for me, because it will let the members of the committee re-immerse themselves in the issue. However, I feel that it is important to establish our priorities for the coming weeks. Moreover, I believe that Bill C-21 will be studied soon. In terms of the way things roll out, we will see, depending on the motions I have introduced. Mr. Chair, you have talked about migrants as well. In my opinion these are hot, important topics that we have to deal with.

As for Tuesday’s meeting, we can start with that; I see no problem.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Michel.

[Michel Picard, Liberal, Montarville, QC]

For your information, in case you were not aware, there is a list of hot, important topics that we have to deal with. Let’s make sure we are talking about the same thing here.

There is an unofficial calendar that contains a number of topics that have been established for the fall. That could even keep us occupied until winter. As you said, there’s Bill C-21, for one thing.

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

That is why I want to know.

[Michel Picard, Liberal, Montarville, QC]

The committee has had this shopping list for two years, and it has become longer. Now you are making some proposals that are also in the calendar.

The steering committee can put it all in order, of course.

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Okay.

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

I'm wondering if the clerk could refresh my memory, or the committee's memory, on what we passed at the end of June for our next study. I thought we had passed a motion to study the issue of indigenous people in corrections. Is that correct?

[The Clerk]

The motion was adopted on March 6, and then we got a lot of legislation that prevented us from starting the study. I can read the motion if you'd like.

That, notwithstanding the motion adopted by the Committee on February 25, 2016, and pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the Committee undertake a study involving no fewer than four (4) and no more than six (6) meetings on the situation of Indigenous inmates and issues with the Release and Re-integration program; that correction officers, Correctional Services of Canada, the Corrections Investigator of Canada, former inmates, members and elders from First Nations, parole officers, academics and content experts be invited as witnesses; that the Committee prepare a report with particular consideration to Indigenous offenders continuing to be released more frequently at statutory release than non-Indigenous offenders and to the reasons most Indigenous offenders did not complete correctional programs before becoming eligible for parole, to resource issues, to access to mental health services; that the Committee make recommendations; that the evidence received by the Committee as part of the briefing on the Annual Report 2014-2015 and 2015-2016 of the Office of the Correctional Investigator be deemed adduced to the Committee’s study and; that the Committee report its findings to the House.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Matthew.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Welcome to the committee, I suppose. We'll see how that plays out, but as you said, we will try to stay collegial.

With regard to the suggestion for this briefing, I'm certainly not opposed to it in principle and I'm always wary of starting a hierarchy of issues in these types of discussions, but as Monsieur Picard alluded to, a number of things have already been on a docket: motions from me, including one on the asylum seekers' situation, and motions from the Conservatives. Given the change in the composition of the membership, perhaps their objectives have changed.

Nonetheless, the study that was just read out by the clerk, and among a whole slew of other things, given that Mr. Doherty's bill, I believe has passed third reading now and does put into place a round table with appropriate ministers discussing this kind of issue, and given that we have done the report before and we could probably talk about this particular topic forever—with no disrespect to the men and women who serve and who are attempting to help with this kind of study—at some point, if we keep coming back to the same topic and given the large number of things we want to deal with, I just feel that already losing a meeting to go back to something when there's so much ahead of us is not necessarily something I would be entirely open to doing, despite not being opposed to the idea in principle.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Is there any other commentary?

I think that does give some guidance to the subcommittee. Unless there is a contrary suggestion, I'm open to an adjournment, and then we can proceed.

Do we have any other business that we should have covered?

[The Clerk]

If we want to do a joint sitting....

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

The clerk has pointed out that if we want to do a joint sitting with the immigration committee, we have to have a motion to that effect. That doesn't bind us, I'm assuming, but that does give us the option.

Can I have someone...?

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

I move the motion.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Is there a seconder?

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

Can I ask a question?

Would this briefing be for one meeting?

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

That's where I'm starting. I don't know where the briefing would lead.

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

Because our point of view—and Mr. Picard pointed this out to me—is that from the Public Safety perspective, we're more operational and immigration is....

We're certainly a very important cog in the wheel of what's going on at the borders, but I think if we were to dedicate one meeting to it, quite frankly we'd start having legislation that would be difficult to do a lot on in the short term. I don't know how quickly that could be arranged and whether that could fill our week next week until we get legislation, if we were to do it for one meeting.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

We could do it for one meeting and, according to the will of the committee, decide whether we wanted to go beyond one meeting. If we have this option on the table, we could at least do a joint meeting, or not, as the case may be.

Mr. Picard's points are well taken, that it is an operational issue. On the other hand, it's probably two-thirds public safety and one-third immigration in terms of weighting. It does seem to be an appropriate topic for which this committee should at least have a briefing.

Monsieur Picard.

[Michel Picard, Liberal, Montarville, QC]

I simply want to explain my point more clearly.

With immigration cases or refugee claims, there are people on the ground handling the situation. There is an impression that Public Safety Canada is beset with the problem and that it is the most important player. But, actually, it just enforces the law, specifically the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

There is an impression that the RCMP, customs and other agencies are in charge of managing these cases, but they just enforce legislation from Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada. Those organizations have a much more visible presence on the ground, but the cases are the responsibility of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada, not Public Safety Canada.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Ultimately, that's true.

Before I ask for adjournment, could those parties who want to put witnesses forward on Bill C-21 start getting their witness lists ready so that the clerks can start to merge them? I don't see Mr. Holland here, but I expect that the government might have a witness or two on Bill C-21.

Pierre.

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

I would like to go back to what Mr. Picard has just mentioned.

Personally, I feel that it is very important to understand the border control situation. RCMP and CBSA members have had to deal with a major problem this summer, particularly in Quebec.

Of course, Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada manages the cases afterwards, but the peace officers actually had to deal with a real problem. Whatever the situation, border control is the responsibility of Public Safety Canada.

You mentioned the possibility of holding a joint meeting about that topic. That sort of goes back to the objective of the motion I introduced and that we have not yet discussed. I think we need to move forward.