Public Safety Committee on Oct. 8th, 2020

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Indeed, the minister did come to the committee in the summer, but of course that was for the study on systemic racism.

I think the importance of the position of the public safety minister right now and the variety of initiatives that have happened under his portfolio, including his crucial position with what Canada is facing right now and the fact that he hasn't, in fact, appeared on his mandate letter, more than merits a two-hour appearance. We as committee members can then do our due diligence and our jobs, on behalf of the people we represent, to hold him to account on the status and the work he is doing based on his mandate.

As well, in this crucial time that we're apparently all in together, it is the perfect time—and urgent, in fact—for him to spend two hours with this committee.

Then he should join us again, as is his duty, in supplementary estimates separately.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Is there any other discussion?

The procedure would mean that the first vote—and this will have to be a recorded vote—will be on Pam's motion that the timeline of the original motion be reduced from two hours to one.

(Amendment negatived: nays 6; yeas 5 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

The amendment fails.

We now go to the main motion. Does everybody understand it or do you need any clarification?

Jack.

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

This is just a clarification. Is this intended, Glen, to supersede the other motion in terms of time, or is the time to be determined by the availability, whatever the recommendation of the subcommittee might be and the decision afterwards?

What's your understanding?

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

Jack, I would suggest that's one of the logistical issues for the subcommittee to determine, based on the minister's schedule and the other studies that are under way.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Okay, we are ready to vote.

(Motion agreed to: yeas 11; nays 0)

Are there any other items for discussion?

Go ahead, Shannon.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Thank you, Chair.

I do want to move a motion now, and it is relevant to Jack's comments about the differentiations between the motions on studies for future work and the one I am about to move.

I want to move that our committee reconvene the study on the Parole Board and the circumstances that led to a young woman's death, which you were working on previously. Pam, you've said that the work is not done and that we must do more to prevent gender-based violence; and Joël, you have spoken very passionately about the importance of this work in the committee.

In exactly the same framework and mindset in which we are continuing the previous study on systemic racism, I would make an argument that we have a duty to determine if there are systemic issues within the parole system that may put vulnerable women at risk and in danger. Certainly, because of the incident that occurred, I think it behooves us to continue with that work. That is in a separate category than other studies and other work that we might do in the future.

Should I just move my motion on recommencing this study?

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Yes, you could. Let's hear your motion first.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

I move that, pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security continue the study on the Parole Board and the circumstances that led to a young woman's death, as originally instructed by unanimous vote in the House of Commons on February 5, 2020, and that the committee report its findings to the House with recommendations.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

The motion is properly in front of the committee.

Before we commence discussion, I want to point out to the committee that the particular study in that particular motion was as a reference from the House, and all matters that are referred to committees die with prorogation.

I don't want to pre-empt any conversation, and I don't know whether the clerk has any matter to add to it, but I think it is unique and distinct from the racism study that was initiated by the committee itself.

Could I hear from the clerk as to whether what would otherwise be a motion that's properly before the committee would be in order?

[The Clerk]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

There's actually no objection, procedurally. If the committee wants to resume a previous study, it can do so. I might suggest a different wording, but other than that, there is no issue.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

What would the wording be if it was going to be different?

[The Clerk]

If you wish, I can send a copy to all members, but in English it would be this: That, pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the committee undertake a study of the Parole Board and the circumstances that let to a young woman's death, and that the evidence and the 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.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

So in effect, it's an end run on the reference from the House. Is that correct?

[The Clerk]

I'm not sure what you mean by an “end run”.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Well, you're not referring back to the unanimous motion that sent it to this committee.

[The Clerk]

Yes, that's correct. Basically, the motion relies on the committee's power to create its own studies.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Okay.

Shannon, I'm assuming that is acceptable to you.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Yes.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Okay.

Is there any discussion?

Go ahead, Pam.

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

I think Joël had his hand up first, Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Sorry, Joël.

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

I'd just like to thank Mrs. Stubbs.

This is indeed an important motion. It deals with an issue that merits the same level of study as systemic racism. The subcommittee is probably in the best position to determine how many meetings we need for the study. I have confidence in the subcommittee to sort all those things out.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Okay.

Is there any other discussion?

Go ahead, Kristina.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I have an amendment to the motion in light of recent cases, especially the Cox case. I'd like to add the following:

…that the Committee also study a more recent case of a repeat offender who had committed violent sexual offences against young women and then committed another offence while on parole; and that the study be renamed the study on the Parole Board of Canada and the circumstances surrounding repeat sexual crimes against women by certain sex offenders.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Kristina, could you go over that motion again, more slowly, so that interpretation can pick it up, please?