Public Safety Committee on March 1st, 2021

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

No, Chair. I'm not.

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

Then, Chair, in light of the original motion and in light of Ms. Damoff's amendment, I would move a subamendment to add that we have the public officials first for a two-hour meeting, and the ministers second for a two-hour meeting. Whether that will be for one four-hour time slot or two individual meetings will be up to the committee.

That is the subamendment I would move to this particular motion, please.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Okay, that was the subamendment to the amendment. I hope we're all keeping track here.

I thought I saw Madame Michaud's hand up.

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

I was going to suggest the same amendment as the one Mr. Motz just proposed.

I don't think a four-hour meeting is necessary; it would be good to have two two-hour meetings. Having the meetings on Wednesday of this week and next Monday would be ideal. Then, we could continue our other studies. I realize it's a short time frame.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

I don't want to get too far into the weeds on how and when and where.

I think I saw Mr. Kurek next.

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

When the initial amendment was read out there wasn't a lot of clarity in terms of one meeting versus two, and I think given the conversations we've had over the last few minutes, there certainly was a bit of confusion. I think if there were to be only two hours—an hour for each—we'd be talking about very little time for the members of the third and fourth parties to ask questions, so the time for the NDP and the Bloc would be severely limited, especially given the way the questioning rounds go. A two-hour total would cut short.... There's not long after the opening statements and then all of a sudden, Mr. Chair, you're having to suspend and go on to the next hour.

Certainly I am amenable to seeing some changes, and to it being done quickly. I think Mr. Harris mentioned that later in the week would be acceptable. I would agree. These are questions to which Canadians are demanding answers. Mr. Van Popta mentioned that he's getting calls to his constituency office, and I've had a number of people walk in since this meeting started, to ask my staff some of those very questions. Actually, it was one walk-in and one phone call.

Two hours is just far too little time. It certainly should be more than that. Mr. Motz has brought forward a compromise that I hope the committee will be amenable to.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Colleagues, if you could you keep your comments isolated to the procedure, as opposed to relitigating the reasons for or against doing this, that would be helpful. Otherwise, we may well go into next week.

I think the order now is Ms. Damoff, Mr. Lightbound and Mr. Harris.

Ms. Damoff.

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

Thanks, Chair.

I'd be prepared to say one three-hour meeting. I would also like to add that with these witnesses we also have other officials as the department deems appropriate. I have no idea, from these agencies, whether those are the right people we need to hear from. So for one three-hour meeting, we could just add—maybe the clerk can get the appropriate wording—that we have other officials as may be appropriate. We want to make sure, if we're going to do this, that we have the right meeting.

I also want to add that I hope the Conservative Party will be just as enthusiastic for meetings on our systemic racism study, which is extremely urgent and needs to be done.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

I think that was probably off the point of procedural debate.

Yes, Mr. Kurek.

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

On a point of order, Mr. Chair, just for procedural clarification, can the mover of an amendment—and I think we're now into a subamendment—amend their own amendment when it's being considered?

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

The way I understood it was that it was a friendly amendment, although I think Mr. Motz moved it as either three hours or two hours and two hours.

Where are we on that?

Glen, can you clarify that, please?

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

I asked whether there was amicability for an amendment to Ms. Damoff's original motion. She indicated that there was not, so then I moved my own motion, as a subamendment, that it be one four-hour meeting or two two-hour meetings.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Okay, so that amendment is still alive. Fair enough.

Mr. Lightbound.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm starting to get lost with all the amendments and subamendments that are being proposed.

The three-hour compromise proposed by Ms. Damoff and also suggested by Mr. Harris would allow us to move quickly on this important issue. We hope it'll be this week so that we can return to our important studies, including the one on systemic racism, while having more time to devote to the study proposed today.

I fully support the proposal to hold one three-hour meeting. I'm even prepared to move this amendment if necessary, so that we can speed things up.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

We will have to deal with Mr. Motz's motion first, procedurally, and if it succeeds, the motion would be amended. Then we would vote on the amendment as amended. Then we would vote on the overall motion.

If that is confusing, that's perfectly understandable.

Madame Lambropoulos.

[Emmanuella Lambropoulos, Liberal, Saint-Laurent, QC]

Thanks, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Motz proposed two things, and I'd be completely against one of them in particular. If we make this more than one meeting, we're really taking away from the time we could be spending on a study that we started a long time ago and that should get quite a bit of consideration.

I definitely think the current motion that's on the floor is one that's really important, but we should probably finish with it this week so we can continue on to our committee work as of next week.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

We'll go to Mr. Harris for, dare I say, the final word?

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

You can say that. I hope you're right.

I think we're trying to aim at some sort of consensus here. There seems to be an interest, at least from many members of the committee, to do it this week. It has been brought as an emergency resolution, and I accept it as that. I think, just by way of suggestion, that an awful lot of witnesses were chosen by their position. I'm not sure they actually had much to do with the establishment of this particular procedure, particularly the CBSA people and the RCMP. Maybe we don't need to hear from each one of those witnesses unless they have something to say. With a little bit of judicious decision-making about who the key witnesses are, I think this can be done efficiently. I think it can be done in three hours. I would like to hear from the officials first, and that's now in the motion.

I hear Mr. Kurek's concern about people not getting enough say, particularly the two parties that are in the second rounds and whatnot, left with two and a half minutes instead of the regular. However, when we do this, we could treat the third hour with the ministers as if it were a new meeting, and have the regular rounds so that we're not left with the rounds where Madam Michaud and I share five minutes. That would be the suggestion on how we could proceed efficiently during the course of this week, which is, of course, a constituency week and not a parliamentary week. Given the nature of what's before us, I believe it's a good thing to do.

I will be supporting a three-hour meeting to see if we can do it this week and do it as efficiently as possible. If we have an hour with the two ministers, we will certainly be able to find out which one of them is responsible and ask the appropriate questions in fairly short order after they have made their opening remarks.

That would be my final word, if it's possible to have a final word in this meeting.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

I wish.

Mr. Motz.

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

Thank you, Chair.

I want to speak to the comment made previously about reducing the number of witnesses and/or finding other witnesses. It's important to note that a lot of work was done to find the right people—the right witnesses to ask the right questions and to give us the answers we're looking for. Looking for other people around the department would be contradictory to the things we have already done here and the efforts that have been made to find the right people to answer our questions.

The officials don't operate on, “Well, who wants to come?” They come at the direction of a committee. Let's keep that in mind about the proper officials. If we want the right answers, let's get the right people here. This is an important enough study. Let's get the right people here. The individuals who have been identified need to be the ones who are at this committee. The work has been done to understand who they are and what their roles are in order to make sure they can answer the questions for Canadians. In order to do that, so that we can all learn, rushing through a meeting....

We're prepared to have the meeting this week. Whether it's one four-hour meeting or two two-hour meetings, let's get it done this week. We can move on to our other studies that are critically important on our regular schedule for next week, so let's get these meetings done this week. We're committed to doing that. Let's get a four-hour meeting going with the officials who have been there.

Chair, I just want to confirm something. I know you have trouble keeping up with all the amendments and the subamendments and the subamendments to the subamendments. If, every time we vote, the clerk would be so kind as to confirm exactly what we're voting on, that would be helpful.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

I would agree with that.

The final speaker is Madame Damoff.

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

Thanks, Chair.

Just to clarify, I wasn't suggesting that any of these witnesses should not come. I just wanted to add that they weren't limited to being the only ones who could come. While I appreciate that Mr. Motz feels these are the ideal people to be present, I would like to give the department the option of bringing others, if so needed, so that we can actually get good information and have the right people in the room. It wasn't to take away from any of these here. It was simply to add “and any other officials, as determined”.

Anyway, I think Glen misunderstood what I was suggesting.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

I don't see any others wishing to speak.

Mr. Motz had a good suggestion. So that we all understand what is being proposed, I believe his amendment is for two two-hour meetings or one four-hour meeting. In all other respects, the motion as it's presently constituted would remain the same.

Via Mr. Clerk, can I confirm that?

[The Clerk]

Yes, on the subamendment of Mr. Motz, it's two two-hour meetings or one four-hour meeting.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Okay. Do people want a recorded vote? I don't see any appetite. It's actually easier to record the vote, because otherwise I'm relying on who I see and who I don't see.

(Subamendment negatived: nays 6; yeas 5)

We're now on the original amendment, as proposed by Madame Damoff, which, if I'm keeping track correctly, has been amended to flip the ministers and the officials.