Evidence of meeting #17 for Public Safety and National Security in the 43rd Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was meeting.
A recording is available from Parliament.
3:50 p.m.
Conservative
Shannon Stubbs Conservative Lakeland, AB
Thank you, Chair.
As much as some colleagues must love me in that mode, thanks for letting me know.
3:50 p.m.
Voices
Oh, oh!
3:50 p.m.
Voices
Oh, oh!
3:50 p.m.
Conservative
Shannon Stubbs Conservative Lakeland, AB
I want to reinforce that, of course, the request in the original motion was to have the officials first and then the ministers, for exactly the reasons outlined by our colleagues.
Again, I want to add to the comments made by other colleagues about the relevance of Public Safety on this issue. It is, of course, in part because it is a federal regulation that ensures that all air travellers must now present themselves to CBSA to validate their health conditions and their quarantine plans. Unfortunately, whether they like it or not, the subsequent safety and security of Canadians and travellers will clearly be subject in part to the actions and decisions of CBSA officers when Canadians are sent to quarantine sites or mandated to quarantine and isolate at home. That is yet another reason that this is in the right committee and that it is under our purview to get answers and accountability. The Quarantine Act systematically and explicitly refers to the responsibilities and roles of CBSA agents. These are border rules and decisions that have then resulted in where Canadians or travellers end up.
Colleagues, notwithstanding maybe our differing perspectives on what remedies or actions should be taken right now, we really ought to be debating this subject. The request of the motion, as I deliberately stated in the beginning of my opening comments, isn't actually to examine individual cases. That's not what's being called for at all. Also, Jack's right that the motion itself doesn't include Conservative proposals for a suspension right now until all these issues can be ironed out and figured out and the safety and security of all Canadians and all travellers can be assured. We should be making our decision based on the motion at hand.
I just hope those comments will assure and reinforce to everybody here that this is the rightful place for us to be seeking the answers and clarity on these issues that Canadians deserve. It has to do fundamentally with their security and their safety in the process of compliance with federal orders that are under the responsibility and purview of the CBSA and a variety of other agencies under Public Safety.
Thanks, Chair.
3:50 p.m.
Liberal
Pam Damoff Liberal Oakville North—Burlington, ON
Thanks, Chair.
As I indicated just before Ms. Stubbs spoke, I would be prepared to change my amendment so that the officials come first and the ministers come in the second hour. The rest would remain the same.
3:50 p.m.
NDP
Jack Harris NDP St. John's East, NL
I just wanted to add that this is something that I think is brought on an urgent basis, and I agree with it being brought forward.
I want to add that in that sense of urgency, I would be happy to find the time this week, if the committee is available, to have this meeting. If we can get the officials to be present, then we should do it this week. If it is a matter of urgency and the concern is there, then I'm prepared to find the time to do that if other members are available and we can get the officials and the ministers to be present.
3:55 p.m.
Conservative
Damien Kurek Conservative Battle River—Crowfoot, AB
Mr. Chair, would it be possible to get the text of the amendment?
3:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John McKay
I was going to have the clerk repeat it back to the committee so that everybody understands it and we are all voting on the amendment as we now understand it.
Mr. Clerk, can you do that for us?
Could you please read the motion in English or French?
3:55 p.m.
The Clerk of the Committee Mr. Mark D'Amore
Shall I read the whole text of the motion, or just where the changes are proposed?
3:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John McKay
We're dealing with the amendment first, and then the friendly amendment proposed by Mr. Harris.
Perhaps you could read it back to the committee on the basis of the amendment first, because that will be the first vote. Then we'll go to the main motion, which I don't think needs to be read to the committee because everyone has a copy of it.
3:55 p.m.
The Clerk
In English, with the proposals for amendment, the motion reads:
That pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the Standing Committee on Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness immediately begin a study into the safety and security of passengers required to stay in federally mandated quarantine facilities and at home under federal quarantine orders, and the failure of the federal government to prevent sexual assaults and other crimes against travelers under these federal orders, that two meetings be scheduled within two weeks of the passage of this motion, each meeting being for not less than....
Then the first part of the amendment is “two hours”—
3:55 p.m.
Liberal
Pam Damoff Liberal Oakville North—Burlington, ON
No. It's one meeting, Mr. Clerk. It's one meeting for two hours.
3:55 p.m.
The Clerk
I'm sorry. So that's one meeting for two hours. The motion goes on to say that the meeting should be televised and that the following witnesses should be invited:
from the Public Health Agency of Canada: Cindy Evans, Vice President, Emergency Management Branch, Karen Walton, Senior Director, Emergency Management Branch, and Sally Thornton, Vice President, Health Security Infrastructure Branch;
from the RCMP: Michael Duheme, Deputy Commissioner for Federal Policing, Ken Hansen, Director of Federal Enforcement Branch, and Warren Coons, Director of Integrated Border Enforcement Team;
from the CBSA: Paul MacKinnon, Vice President, Intelligence and Enforcement and Andrew LeFrank, Vice President, Director General for Enforcement and Intelligence; and....
The other addition was Dr. Isaac Bogoch.
The motion continues, “that both the Minister of Public Safety and the Minister of Health appear at the same time”—
3:55 p.m.
Liberal
Pam Damoff Liberal Oakville North—Burlington, ON
It would be, I think, “for the second hour, that the Minister of Public Safety and the Minister of Health appear”, period.
3:55 p.m.
The Clerk
Okay. It's “for the second hour”.
It continues:
If the Ministers do not agree, within one week of the adoption of this motion, to accept this invitation for the length of time prescribed, the Chair shall be instructed to report to the House forthwith a recommendation that this committee be empowered to order his or her appearance from time to time.
3:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John McKay
The discussion is on the motion as proposed to be amended. I hope people understand the flipping that's going on here between ministers and officials.
I see that Mr. Motz has his hand up.
3:55 p.m.
Conservative
Glen Motz Conservative Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I want to speak to the understanding Mr. Harris had in the agreement to this. First of all, it's news to me, in reading this, that we are proposing one two-hour meeting when the initial motion was for two three-hour meetings. I think we can speak to that.
Is that the understanding you had, Mr. Harris, that it was going to be one two-hour meeting? That's not the understanding I had with the amendment that was read initially by Ms. Damoff.
4 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John McKay
That's a legitimate point of clarification. Maybe Mr. Harris and Ms. Damoff can speak to that.
4 p.m.
NDP
Jack Harris NDP St. John's East, NL
I certainly heard the two hours, but with all the witnesses we have, it may not be possible to do it in two hours, so if someone wants to amend that to three hours, we can have one three-hour meeting. I'm interested in doing this efficiently and soon, as opposed to having it go into the next week and the week after. This is something that is current and it's concerning. Members of this committee are concerned about it, as we've just heard from everyone and from our visitor, Ms. Rempel Garner.
I think we should capture the moment and do it this week if we can find two or three hours. The amendment as it stands right now is for two hours, but if it were three hours, I'd be satisfied with that too.
4 p.m.
Conservative
Glen Motz Conservative Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB
Chair, in response to that I would suggest—if the mover of the amendment agrees—that we have either two two-hour meetings or one four-hour meeting as an amendment to that, and that we do it soon. We're certainly able to try to make that happen. That would be one four-hour meeting or two two-hour meetings as soon as can be arranged.
4 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John McKay
Okay, there's been one friendly amendment to Madame Damoff's initial amendment, which has been accepted and read into the record. If we are going to change that, or if Mr. Motz wishes to move an additional amendment, he's welcome to do so, unless Madame Damoff is prepared to see Mr. Motz's comments as friendly comments.