Evidence of meeting #28 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 chair.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John McKay
I'm a little lost on what the framing should be. Is it that the committee dedicate one meeting to study the management and control of Canada's borders, following the Auditor General's report?
Conservative
Shannon Stubbs Conservative Lakeland, AB
I think I'm probably not going to magically solve this issue here, except to reiterate what Jack has said. That is exactly my recollection of the discussion at the subcommittee. Kristina and I certainly were suggesting that we should move very quickly on studying that issue, because of the significant impact that it has on the everyday lives of Canadians and because it is an urgent issue in real time right now.
I know that Pam didn't want to go to that study soon and was wondering why we would do that, but then I had said....
Liberal
Liberal
Conservative
Shannon Stubbs Conservative Lakeland, AB
I apologize, although I guess we just have been for the past five minutes.
However, the conclusion was that, since the Auditor General's report has clarified that there have been problems in terms of border management and a lack of training—this is all public, right—and clarity for border agents managing the border during COVID, we agree that, in order to allow for action to be taken, [Technical difficulty—Editor] after the rest of this schedule, as Jack has said. We would then meet to examine what progress or changes have been made.
Bloc
Kristina Michaud Bloc Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC
For the sake of simplicity, as you said, Mr. Chair, we could just write: “That, in light of the Auditor General's Report 8...the committee will dedicate one meeting to the study of the borders...”
We could talk about a meeting on this study. We would then work out the details of that meeting. I don't know whether we should do so now. However, I think that, if we say that a meeting will be dedicated to the study, that may be sufficient.
Liberal
Pam Damoff Liberal Oakville North—Burlington, ON
I think that's fine, Chair. One meeting to look at it is fine.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John McKay
How would we frame paragraph 7, then? Is it “That the committee have one meeting to study the management and control of Canada's borders”?
Is that fine?
NDP
Jack Harris NDP St. John's East, NL
I think “in light of the Auditor General's report” would be fine. We don't necessarily need—
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John McKay
Okay. Do you want to start the sentence with, “In light of the Auditor General's report, that the committee have one meeting to study the opening and closing of Canada's borders”?
Is that good enough?
Conservative
Tako Van Popta Conservative Langley—Aldergrove, BC
Should we make reference to the date of the Auditor General's report so that we know we have the right one?
Conservative
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John McKay
As the amendments have been put forward, is there a will to accept the subcommittee's report?
(Motion agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Seeing no objections and the unanimous enthusiasm of the committee to accept the subcommittee's report, that's dealt with.
The final item is the emergency motion.
With that, I'll turn it over to Pam.
Liberal
Pam Damoff Liberal Oakville North—Burlington, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I think all of us are upset and troubled by what we heard from Mr. McGuinty, and when we read his report. As a result, the Liberal members sent to you a letter under Standing Order 106(4).
In the letter, we quote CSIS in their report in 2020, which said:
Since 2014, Canadians motivated in whole or in part by their extremist ideological views have killed 21 people and wounded 40 others on Canadian soil—more than religiously motivated violent extremism...or politically motivated violent extremism....
The COVID-19 pandemic has exacerbated xenophobic and anti-authority narratives, many of which may directly or indirectly impact national security considerations. Violent extremists continue to exploit the pandemic by amplifying false information about government measures and the virus itself on the internet. Some violent extremists view COVID-19 as a real but welcome crisis that could hasten the collapse of Western society. Other violent extremist entities have adopted conspiracy theories about the pandemic in an attempt to rationalize and justify violence. These narratives have contributed to efforts to undermine trust in the integrity of government and confidence in scientific expertise. While aspects of conspiracy theory rhetoric are a legitimate exercise in free expression, online rhetoric that is increasingly violent and calls for the arrest and execution of specific individuals is of increasing concern.
That's from the Canadian Security Intelligence Service. We just heard from Mr. McGuinty, the chair of NSICOP, that the very serious and striking thing about the review to him was this exact rise in IMVE—a 320% increase in the number of groups.
We are the public safety committee. We sent this letter prior to Mr. McGuinty's testimony, but in light of his testimony, I think it makes it even more urgent for the committee that is seized with looking after the safety of the public to vote in favour of this.
I think it was Mr. Harris who asked about the man who tried to breach Rideau Hall to arrest the Prime Minister. Mr. Harris's leader, Jagmeet Singh, was subjected to someone who followed him last summer, making threats. Mr. Singh, in the House, said that the government needs to use all available tools to address the proliferation of white supremacist and hate groups. In fact, it was his motion in the House that called for the Proud Boys to be listed as a terrorist entity.
This is not a partisan issue at all, but it is one that is of extreme concern to Canadians. There are real world threats out there right now. I know that other committees in Parliament have studied online hate. There was a study about anti-racism done by the heritage committee in 2018. Those are very different issues. The heritage committee dealt with the rise of racism and how to deal with that. Many of the recommendations were community-based. The justice committee in 2019 looked at online hate.
This is much different and much more urgent, and it's a threat to Canadians. I think it's incumbent upon us, as the committee that is seized with ensuring that we're looking at urgent issues for Canadians, that we do in fact review this.
Therefore, Mr. Chair, I want to move this motion:
That pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security immediately begin a study no later than May 10th into ideologically motivated violent extremism in Canada; that the study consist of four meetings; that the committee invite representatives from our national security agencies and those who have been impacted by IMVE; that the committee report its findings to the House; and that pursuant to Standing Order 109, the government table a comprehensive response to the report.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Bloc
Kristina Michaud Bloc Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Ms. Damoff, thank you for bringing this motion forward. I totally agree that this is an extremely relevant topic that the committee should study.
However, I can't help but make a comment. As time goes on, this situation is becoming a little frustrating because the committee agreed on several motions early on. These motions were pretty much all adopted unanimously. We agreed on studies that we wanted to undertake, but we did not reach an agreement on the order in which we wanted to do them.
Since the beginning, we haven't made much progress for several reasons. We're still working on the report on systemic racism and the report on the death of Marylène Levesque, in particular because the Conservatives have tabled a few motions that give priority to certain studies. It's the same thing with the Liberals. I find this frustrating for Mr. Harris and me, although I understand that this is how democracy works.
If more members of our party were on the committee, we too would use this part of Standing Order 106(4) to give priority to the motions we put forward earlier.
It’s a little annoying to do it that way, because we had agreed to Mr. Lightbound's motion about hate speech on social media, which was pretty much the same. I understand that it's not the same thing and that it has been studied by other committees—an argument that comes up often. When we want to bring forward certain motions, we are told that other committees have already studied the subject.
Despite this, I believe that this motion is important. However, I would like to propose an amendment to the motion. Instead of studying it immediately, I think we could study it as soon as we finished the three reports we're working on right now.
The amendment can be worded any way you want, by mentioning the names of the reports or with the words that this study will be started as soon as the committee finishes its current work. My guess is that this study will take us until the end of May or the beginning of June. I think it would be reasonable to do it that way. If we do it immediately, it will push back the work we're doing right now, which is equally important.
So I would like to propose this friendly amendment.