Public Safety Committee on May 5th, 2021

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

First of all, let's find out how friendly the amendment is.

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

No, I'm not prepared to amend it like that, Chair. Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Okay, when we come to voting, it will be the amendment first and then the main motion. The debate will continue on the amendment, which will probably slop over into the other....

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

I'm sorry. I have a point of order.

Can I get the specific amendment read out to make sure we're all on the same page?

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Okay.

Kristina, can you be specific? It's really a change in time.

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

Yes, Mr. Chair.

We could strike out the word “immediately”. So it would read:

That pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security begin a study no later than May 10 into ideologically motivated extremism…

To summarize, we would change the word “immediately” to “as soon as the committee completes its current work” that we are working on.

Mr. Clerk, I don't know what the best way to word it is, but I'm sure you understand what I'm trying to do.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Let me look to the clerk to see if that is sufficient, if the phrasing “immediately” were struck.

[The Clerk]

I'd like some clarification, Ms. Michaud.

Are you talking about work in general or specific reports?

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

I'm referring in particular to the report on systemic racism and the report on the study related to the death of Marylène Levesque. Those are the two main reports we're working on right now.

[The Clerk]

So you're specifically referring to reports that are already being studied or are in progress.

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

Exactly.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

For language purposes, the amendment is striking the word “immediately” and adding that this not be dealt with until all of the reports are dealt with.

That's the sense of it. Is that clear to everyone?

Next is Joël, Jack, Shannon, Glen—oh my goodness.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'll try to be relatively brief.

To respond to Ms. Michaud's comments, I agree that there is some overlap between the motion I put forward and this motion. However, unless I'm mistaken, the motion on online hate and extremism that I put forward was passed as a priority after the cases of systemic racism and the death of Ms. Levesque occurred.

However, there's still a difference, in that the motion that is being put forward with respect to Standing Order 106(4) deals specifically with ideologically motivated violent extremism. We just heard the chair of the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians say that this was the most striking aspect of the report tabled by that committee. He said that the dramatic rise of these types of groups in Canada and elsewhere in the west was a surprise to our intelligence agencies and to police forces, both here and elsewhere in the west.

I think this shows the importance of studying the issue. We've seen the events that have occurred throughout the United States and Europe. Here, in Canada, we've seen the rise of these groups. I believe there's no more pressing issue for the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security than this.

I therefore encourage all my colleagues to support the motion before us. It proposes four meetings over a two-week period. This motion would provide us with relevant information that would inform the government's decisions on this issue and, in the opinion of the chair of the NSICOP, which is responsible for assessing threats to the country's national security, it could hardly be more urgent and pressing.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Thank you.

Jack.

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

Thank you, Chair.

I have to agree with the urgency of the matter. We have heard, obviously, the recent testimony and we have the report, and [Technical difficulty—Editor] brought up the attack on Rideau Hall. He certainly attacked the gate. He didn't get to the Prime Minister to arrest him. Of course, he wasn't there.

Also, in Newfoundland and Labrador during the last election, a gentleman took it upon himself.... He had a pickup as well. I don't know if there is any coincidence in that, but he was driving with the intention to “stop the election”, and showed up in front of a campaign headquarters in Deer Lake after being chased. He eluded the police along the way, with 16 hunting rifles and various other things in his vehicle. He was arrested and was subsequently charged.

We do have people who seem to be motivated by ideologies of one sort or another who take it upon themselves to do these things. It is a relatively new phenomenon. It's not the newness of the phenomenon, but the extent of it that appears to give it a sense of urgency.

To me, “urgent” means maybe we should deal with it between now and the end of the session and find a way of doing that. To drop everything to do it and take up four meetings right away doesn't seem to make sense. I'm not prepared to agree to that, but I will agree to undertake the study. Perhaps we can do it in conjunction with the other work we've already committed to, and not necessarily take anything away from what's been put in place already.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Shannon.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Thank you, Chair.

I think the other edit that will have to be made, in terms of the timing, is striking the reference to May 10. When you look at the agenda circulated from the subcommittee, on Monday, May 10, we will be doing drafting instructions for the Marylène Levesque report.

The Conservatives have no problem with this motion and undertaking this important study. However, we share the same concerns about the timing and completion of the work as it's been scheduled. We certainly do support Kristina's motion regarding timing, but I think an adjustment will have to be made to delete the “no later than May 10th” part, because per the schedule, we will be dealing with the Marylène Levesque report then.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Colleagues, we started at 3:48. It's now 5:47. Without unanimous consent, I have to adjourn the meeting. In this case, if the meeting is adjourned without debate on the motion, I have to bring it back at the first available opportunity.

I'm open to suggestions.

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

Can we move to a vote? There's an amendment and then the—

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

I don't think we can move to a vote when there are still people wishing to speak.

Unfortunately, I think I have to adjourn unless I get unanimous consent to continue with this meeting.

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

Chair, are you not suspending because we're in the middle of debate on a motion?

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

I suspend the debate on the motion and adjourn the meeting, to be brought up at the first opportunity. Ideally, there would be some conversations prior to the next meeting, which would be Monday.

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

Okay.

I think we suspend the meeting, though, Chair.

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

I have a point of order.

Was there not unanimous consent? I'm okay, personally, with going forward. I didn't actually hear the question get asked, though.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

I didn't see the unanimous consent to extend the time past 5:48.