Public Safety Committee on May 5th, 2021

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

I said we were jogging along and were mostly agreed. I didn't—

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

We still have Kristina's amendment, which takes precedent before we move any further. I just want to make sure that—

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

No. Her amendment was taken over by your amendment. Your amendment is the only one that's formally still through. The way I heard it two comments ago, you were withdrawing it, as commented by Darren, and we were working out this schedule. The schedule, except for your concerns about May 31, was essentially looking like it was agreed to until June 7.

I was going to suggest that we then leave June 9 to be one of IMVE, the border or CSC, depending on—

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

I have a point of order.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Go ahead, Damien.

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

I'm sorry, Mr. Chair, but it was my understanding that Glen withdrew his subamendment to Kristina's amendment. Wouldn't we procedurally be currently in discussions on Kristina's amendment, which replaced, I believe—this is going from memory—the May 10 deadline, which was the subject of some controversy at the conclusion of the last meeting, in order to ensure that it wouldn't be made out of order for the deliberations taking place now?

All the scheduling is fair discussion, and I think it lends towards the larger debate, but my understanding is that there is currently an amendment on the floor that needs to be dealt with before any further decisions can be made.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

I could stand corrected, and it wouldn't be the first time, and it won't be the last time.

The way I understood it was that the Damoff motion is the main motion. There was a proposed amendment by Michaud and proposed subamendment by Motz. Michaud withdrew in favour of Motz, and then Motz's in turn, I've interpreted, was withdrawn while having a conversation about the various dates. Then Pam and Jack put a proposal forward that got us to June 7 with one objection by Glen. I hope I have that sort of right.

Jack, you're up.

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

I'm working my way through this as well, because we all have to. We're all working our way through this. We have the study of racism on May 26. On May 31, I think at the moment, that's also possibly the study on racism for now.

We also have to remember, if we're looking at scheduling all the time, that we might end up losing time, because this is the crazy season, as anyone who's been around this Parliament for any length of time knows. There are votes galore and God knows what to interfere with our work.

I think we ought to have some flexibility built into this, which is why I made the original proposal. I'm not sure May 31 is totally agreed upon, because the study on racism might have to be given priority. I've been thinking about priority. To me, the priority is the study on racism and getting the Bastarache report done—because it's doable—which means hearing from them on June 2, so that we have lots of time to get a report out on that. If we don't do it on the day, we might have it bleed into something else.

The third priority for a report is the Levesque study, if we can possibly do it. As for the IMVE and the CSC, I don't think we're going to get reports on those unless someone wants to move a particular motion that would be in the form of a report.

I would see us into the Levesque report on June 7. As you said, sir, June 9 is open for IMVE, border or CSC. The same would be said for June 14: IMVE, border or CSC. One of those has to be the border, and we'll use the other one to finish the Leveque report, if we're going to do it. We then have room left for the last three days, if they're available, to finish the Leveque study with a third meeting on the IMVE, if it hasn't already taken place, and to do a second meeting on CSC, if it hasn't already taken place. We still have one floater.

I'm not worried so much about what's on June 16, 21 and 23 as such, as long as we're all going to be here on June 23. Whether the House is here or not, we can still be here and I'm happy to do that.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

I want to caution folks.

I was hoping to get some instructions to the folks on the Levesque report today. To be realistic about it, we can basically plan a month in advance, and even that is going to be subject to the vagaries of parliamentary procedure. We need to focus our minds so that we can get a coherent path forward. Otherwise, the Levesque report won't be dealt with today either.

I think it's Glen next, then Kristina and then Pam.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Kristina had her hand up before me. I'll go after her, please.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Okay.

Kristina, go ahead.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I wanted to say that I had the same understanding as you, Mr. Chair, that my amendment had become Mr. Motz's and we had withdrawn it. I think it would be simpler for everybody if Ms. Damoff, as she suggested, amended her own motion with the dates she mentioned to us.

If anyone disagrees with any of the dates, they may propose a subamendment. Personally, I would feel reassured to have the dates we talked about included in the motion. That way, we'll know they won't be changed four or five times, as we've been doing all along.

This would organize the end of the session nicely. We would know where we are going, bearing in mind that we have enough meetings to finish the report on the study on the circumstances surrounding Ms. Levesque's death. I think everybody would be happy with the way it seems to be shaping up. Having it in writing might be better.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Glen.

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

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Kristina. That's my thinking as well.

As I mentioned before, Chair and team, my concern is the 31st. I think we can live with some adjustments. We haven't heard from the analysts whether the 31st is a possibility to get at Levesque after today—we can get at it again today—and whether we are going to be in a position to start looking at it differently, and then on the seventh as well. We have some flexibility with the ninth, 14th, 16th, 21st and 23rd, as Jack indicated, on extremism, the border and CSC, but our priorities remain racism and the Levesque study. I don't think we can continue to put those ones off for any other reason.

I don't know where we're at with the racism one. Are they going to be ready for us on the 26th? I don't know. I certainly hope so.

Let's put the dates in here. If there's a date [Technical difficulty—Editor] I'm proposing. As I said, let's shore up something different for the 31st, and I'm good with it personally. We need to get at the things we've committed to tabling in the House. Those are racism and Levesque, with no exceptions.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

There's no question.

Pam.

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

Chair, I'll give you an amendment to my motion. It's that “the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security immediately begin a study of three meetings to be held on Wednesday, May 12, 2021 with departmental officials, Monday, May 31, 2021 and June 23, 2021, into ideologically motivated violent extremism in Canada” and remove the words “no later than May 10th”. We remove the words “that the study consist of four meetings” because that has already been dealt with.

I would add at the end, Chair, that the following schedule be suggested for the committee: May 26, racism study; May 31, IMVE; June 2, Minister Blair and Commissioner Lucki on Bastarache; June 7, review Levesque study; June 9, 16 and 21, Levesque or CSC, timing dependent; and June 14, the border study.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Okay.

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

I would amend it that way, recognizing we might have to revisit this after.

I hope that gives some flexibility to the other dates. If we need more time for Levesque, we can take more time for Levesque. It still leaves in the border study, which was Kristina's motion. Minister Blair, Commissioner Lucki and Bastarache were extremely important.

That's how I would amend it. Ideally, I would have preferred to have the third meeting on our IMVE study sooner, but we can live with the 23rd, Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Everyone has heard the proposal.

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

I didn't hear the whole proposal.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Okay. We can do it again.

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

I missed the ninth.

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

Jack, the ninth, 16th and 21st would be Levesque or CSC, depending on how much time we need.

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

I'm not prepared to agree with that. That leaves one meeting for the CSC, presumably.

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

I moved IMVE down to the 23rd, Jack.