Public Safety Committee on Oct. 8th, 2020

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

No, there was not, and deliberately, because even though this is a brand new Parliament, I don't want to be that prescriptive. We had picked witnesses from before. That's why I suggested the subcommittee could do a work plan. I think we had two meetings left, but there were three witnesses per meeting. Jack mentioned that there are some people he'd like to hear from. I think cramming the three witnesses into one meeting is a challenge. We did it because it was the summer and we were trying to get in as much as we could.

Even if we only went with the same witnesses we had last time, I would strongly urge that we have only two witnesses per meeting to allow for proper questioning of the witnesses. For anyone who was on the committee when we had three, and for some of them I think we had four witnesses, it really did a disservice to the testimony we were given.

So I did not put a number of meetings on it. Having said that, we've already held quite a few meetings on it, so there's not an awful lot left for us to do.

I'll just leave it there.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Shannon.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Thank you, Chair.

To that point, Pam, I think it would be beneficial to add in a time frame and some specificity around the remaining meetings. I would suggest two. The reason I suggest two for the remaining meetings is that there have already been six meetings, and 26 witnesses participated in this important study previously. Although it is a new Parliament, we certainly, I would think, face no barriers in terms of calling on their testimony and their good work and sharing their experiences here.

I also note that in 2019 at this committee there was a study on crime in rural areas—thank you for taking that on—and a study on indigenous people in the federal corrections system. Both were eight meetings in total, so it seems to me that it's reasonable for us to say that we can wrap up this important work with two remaining meetings.

The other reason I would say this is that I think we all want to get to better outcomes. The longer we have meetings, the longer we're held up from moving forward with substantive recommendations and a report to achieve both a highlight of the concerns on this issue and also a move to substantive recommendations to stamp out instances of racism, to which we are all unanimously opposed, and actually get to making things better on this issue in Canada.

That's why I would propose, if members would support it, adding in a timeline for a completion of this study and then to dictate our work from there.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Glen, before I turn to Kristina, Jack and then Joël, I just got a note from the clerk saying that without your headset on, you get no interpretation. Maybe you're one of those guys who don't need any interpretation.

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

I borrowed this headset. I was told by the person I borrowed it from in the office next door that it keeps cutting out. I will try it. Hopefully, it doesn't cut out anymore.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Thanks.

We have Kristina, Jack and then Joël.

[Kristina Michaud, Bloc, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

I'd like Ms. Damoff to read out the motion. I'd also like to know whether we can move amendments to the motion before it is put to a vote.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Yes, we can do that.

Pam, do you want to read out the motion again so that we all know what we're talking about here?

Your mike is on mute.

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

Oh. I'm pulling a John McKay here.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

That's right.

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

Kristina, I was unable to share this motion ahead of time because the committee wasn't constituted. I do have it translated, but I'll read it again:

That, pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the committee undertake a study into systemic racism in policing in Canada and in particular the RCMP, and that the evidence and documentation received by the committee during the First Session of the 43rd Parliament on the subject be taken into consideration by the committee in the current session; that the committee report its findings to the House; and that, pursuant to Standing Order 109, the committee request that the Government table a comprehensive response to the report.

I believe it's the motion I have on the table, is it not, Chair?

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Yes.

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

It's exactly the same motion that we passed in the last session of Parliament, just with the addition that we bring the evidence from the previous session into this session. That's the only change that's been made to the motion we adopted.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Kristina.

[Kristina Michaud, Bloc, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair and Ms. Damoff.

That's great. I wanted to add that the work done previously be given serious consideration, even though this is a new session of Parliament.

I would even say that we should specify a date for the tabling of the report. There is consensus on this issue: everyone wants things to progress quickly so our findings can be reported to the House in short order. With your agreement, I would suggest including a specific date, before January 2021. I'm not sure how long it normally takes to write a report. The clerk could enlighten me on that. I think we need to deal with this issue expeditiously so the committee can move on to its next study. I know a number of topics are on the list.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

We're getting a fair number of proposed amendments. Why don't I do it this way? Why don't we go through the discussion first, exhaust the discussion, and then we'll go back to the amendments as to the number of meetings and an end date?

Jack.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm going to suggest that Pam's motion is probably sufficient for this meeting. The decisions about whether we should have one meeting, or two or three or four, are premature at this point, unless someone has a desire to compress the study.

We have a number of new members on the committee. We're bringing new evidence back in as a result of the motion that was passed. People should have a chance to review it and see if it's complete.

There are a number of topics that we did discuss, and as Pam pointed out, some of our witnesses, even though valuable.... If you had three witnesses appearing and making presentations in one hour, quite often you didn't have a lot of time to ask questions. You couldn't ask three people questions. If you were lucky, you had a thorough opportunity with one. I think we do need time to consider that.

The steering committee may make recommendations to the group. People will have their opinions and make a decision. A full committee would still make the decision. I think there needs to be an opportunity for people to say what they would do with those meetings, what aspects were not covered or ought to be covered.

I'm not going to get into some suggestions that I had, but there are one or two very important issues—contract policing, for example—that we didn't really get into very much. I don't know if we had it as part of our original work plan.

I'm not interested in having a full fall being spent on this committee, by no means. I have four or five ideas of my own, and I'm sure committee members will have others that we need to put into the mix to see what we do next. I would certainly think that either the....

On the timing of the report, we could decide that today, although, again, I think that if we leave it to the subcommittee to at least discuss these things and come up with a collective recommendation, as opposed to something in the spur of the.... It's nothing to negate the thought that went into your motion, Kristina, but to at least think about it and have an opportunity to talk to the clerk about what's realistic in terms of the committee, the analysts' work and all that. I think we might get a better idea of how quickly we can do this. That just seems to me to make sense.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Before I call on Joël, I'll just mention that you've all been mailed the motion. It should be in your box.

Joël.

[Joël Lightbound, Liberal, Louis-Hébert, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I agree with Mr. Harris that we shouldn't decide on a set number of meetings and we should let the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure figure it out. If it's the committee's will, perhaps we could establish a maximum number of meetings—say, six—and let the subcommittee figure out exactly how many we need. Realistically, I think we need more than two meetings to dive back into the study we started in the summer and to instruct the analysts.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Does anyone else want to speak to the main motion? If there is no one to speak to the main motion, then I want to go to Shannon.

You're going to move, as an amendment, your limitation to two meetings.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

I think I pick up from Jack's comments, and the comments around the table, that there doesn't seem to be an appetite for setting limits on the number of meetings.

I would still encourage that to happen, for the reasons that have been discussed. I will suggest, and seek to discuss right after this, that if we do vote in favour of continuing the systemic racism study, in particular with no concrete timeline for us to put forward recommendations to take action, we also seek to move to bring back the Parole Board study into the Levesque murder, because there were only two meetings done with five witnesses heard on that study. In the exact same thought process and arguments that have been made by our members about this study, I'll seek to have that continued by our committee.

That is an additional reason why we should be mindful of timelines on these studies, because we'll need to continue with that important work and have time for both of those things to be accomplished.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

I interpret that as withdrawing your limitation.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Yes.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Next was Kristina.

You wanted to set an outside date. Do you want to move that as a motion?

[Kristina Michaud, Bloc, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Mr. Lightbound made a good point. Before I move an amendment, I'd like the clerk to clarify a few things for me. Is the time frame I suggested realistic? Does it give us enough time to get everything ready, write the report and so forth?

I'd like to hear what the clerk thinks.