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.
6:25 p.m.
Liberal
6:25 p.m.
Conservative
Shannon Stubbs Conservative Lakeland, AB
No, Chair, I'm sorry. I had my hand up.
First of all, Conservatives want to thank the Liberals for bringing forward this motion. We share your belief in its importance and we certainly have seen the same information from NSICOP and CSIS.
To that end, Pam, would you accept a friendly amendment, or see it as friendly, if we expanded it and added to the scope of your motion rather than leaving it narrow in the way it is now, just given the fact that both CSIS and NSICOP, for example, say that religiously motivated violent extremism continues to be a top threat? In fact, Jewish people in Canada are the top people who are threatened the most in Canada.
By this phenomenon of violent extremism, through which there is often an online component, as you had said earlier, I wonder if, to make it more inclusive, rather than limiting and prescriptive, you would be open to adding the words “politically motivated violent extremism and religiously motivated violent extremism” immediately following the words “ideologically motivated violent extremism” so that this study would encompass the diversity and the variety of threats to individual and public safety that, Conservatives agree with you, exist and are growing.
Just to account for that, the second reference right now in the motion that says people “who have been impacted by IMVE” would then just say “who have been impacted by violent extremism”.
Does that capture it?
Chair, do you want me to make a formal motion?
6:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John McKay
Let me just find out whether Pam considers that friendly.
Just so I understand it, this would add the words “political” and “religious” to “ideological”.
6:25 p.m.
Conservative
Shannon Stubbs Conservative Lakeland, AB
Right, it would add both of those. Then the motion would capture all forms of violent extremism in Canada. It would capture ideologically motivated, religiously motivated, hate-based extremism, extremist travellers, including neo-Nazis and ISIS, and then also politically motivated ones.
6:25 p.m.
Conservative
Shannon Stubbs Conservative Lakeland, AB
It is to add, “politically motivated and religiously motivated violent extremism” to “ideologically”. It's not taking anything away, but adding to it.
6:25 p.m.
Conservative
Glen Motz Conservative Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB
Then it is removing that last part, as you indicated, Shannon, so it says, “impacted by...”?
6:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John McKay
First of all, let me find out whether that's perceived to be a friendly amendment.
6:25 p.m.
Liberal
Pam Damoff Liberal Oakville North—Burlington, ON
Mr. Chair, I appreciate Shannon's trying to expand.
Right now, we have two meetings on this subject.
If you look at the CSIS report, it states the following:
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”.
While I'm not trying to play down the importance of those two, I think it's clear from the CSIS report, from the information that Mr. McGuinty shared with us, that ideologically motivated violent extremism is worthy of a study on its own.
I would suggest that, if Ms. Stubbs wanted to suggest.... We all hope we're back in September. If we want to do another study on those, we could look at that, but I think that right now, with only two meetings scheduled, it would be impossible to expand it, so I would say no. I don't treat it as a friendly amendment. I think we need to deal with the one that is killing 21 people and wounding 40 others on Canadian soil and treat it as the urgent matter that it is.
6:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John McKay
I would perceive, though, that there is now an amendment on the floor, so the debate is on the amendment.
Go ahead, Mr. Harris.
6:25 p.m.
NDP
Jack Harris NDP St. John's East, NL
I didn't really have my hand up to debate the amendment, but I do have another issue to raise. Maybe I'll have to wait until the amendment is dealt with.
6:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John McKay
Okay.
Does everybody understand the amendment? Is there any debate on the amendment?
Seeing none, I'm assuming we'll want a roll call.
6:25 p.m.
Conservative
Damien Kurek Conservative Battle River—Crowfoot, AB
Thank you very much.
I think it's unfortunate that there's not a willingness on behalf of the members of the government on this committee to expand the study in what I think is an inherently reasonable manner. I read the NSICOP report and have been following closely some of the other work, and it's stated very clearly, in fact—I'm paraphrasing from memory—that religiously motivated extremism is the greatest threat to Canadians.
I think it's incumbent upon all of us to ensure that, when we undertake these studies, the committee is not prejudging a conclusion. What I think is a very reasonable amendment put forward by Ms. Stubbs would ensure that the committee is addressing the issues facing Canadians in a manner that allows the committee to really get to the bottom of what is undoubtedly....
I think there is universal agreement on this committee that there are concerns that need to be addressed; however, with a narrow scope, I think we limit the work that the committee can do that would more effectively ensure what we can address what I think, and certainly hope, is at the heart of this motion.
I plan to support the amendment. I think it adds to the study proposed by the government, and it would ensure that it accomplishes, as I said, what I hope the objective is here.
For the committee to limit itself and prejudge its outcomes would be an unfortunate restriction. Again, I think it's unfortunate that it wasn't accepted as a friendly amendment, but because of the fact that we could do good work as a result, I hope members would consider supporting that.
6:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John McKay
We'll go to Glen, and then Pam and Jack. I'm not sure which one was up first.
Glen.
6:25 p.m.
Conservative
Glen Motz Conservative Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB
Thank you, Chair.
What I will add is that, as Damien said, we don't want to prejudge what is ideologically motivated or religiously motivated. In many cases, quite honestly, what I might consider to be religiously motivated hate crime extremism might actually be ideologically motivated. The challenge that we are going to be facing is trying to differentiate the issue, so let's avoid the issue of any grey area and have it all-encompassing because the overarching theme for all of these is violence. It's the violence.
It doesn't matter whether I'm ideologically or politically or religiously motivated, it is the violence that puts Canadians at risk in this country. As Damien said, let's not limit ourselves to.... Again, we're going to have witnesses who are going to have varying views. We're going to have witnesses who will talk about extremism in all of its forms, not just ideologically motivated, as I said, because some may consider religiously motivated extremism to be an ideology. Why would we put ourselves already in a grey area where we're going to be having dual motives being debated as opposed to the issue of violence because of extremism?
I will be supporting the amendment as a result.
6:25 p.m.
NDP
Jack Harris NDP St. John's East, NL
I hadn't had my hand raised initially to wade in on this, but since I have listened to the discussion I decided I have a view that would support the motion as it is, and it's not because Glen hasn't made a very good point or the points are there. We're only talking about two meetings and the possibility of a third, which is doubtful. It's kind of focused. If we go into the fall, then I'd be amenable to amending it or expanding it if the will is there.
I agree that sometimes it's hard to tell. Is anti-Semitism religious-based or is it something else? It's extremism. It's terrible and awful and, as pointed out, one of the worst most common forms of discrimination, and can be violent as well. I think this study, and the intention of the mover from the very beginning, was to deal with the specifics of ideologically motivated—politically motivated, I guess you'd call it—extremism as a new phenomenon that we need to look at.
If we only have two meetings, let's stick to that. That's not say anything about the concerns of other equally important types of extremism, but given the nature of the recommendation from the beginning and all the debate so far, I don't think we should change it for now.
6:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John McKay
We're down to 45 minutes for drafting instructions on Levesque. I'm just taking note.
6:25 p.m.
Liberal
6:25 p.m.
Liberal
Pam Damoff Liberal Oakville North—Burlington, ON
Thanks, Chair.
I agree with Jack on a short study.
I also want to remind people that there have been no Canadians killed in 2020 due to religiously motivated violent extremism or politically motivated violent extremism, but there have been.... We heard very clearly from Mr. McGuinty when he appeared—and I'm sure we will hear from CSIS when they appear and they can give us some clarification on this—that this is a new phenomenon. It is rapidly increasing during the pandemic and I think it's important that we look at this in our two short meetings, possibly three.
It's something that Canadians need to.... We're the public safety committee, and this is something that is new and it's a threat. I remember Mr. McGuinty saying that the number of people, Canadians, involved in ideologically motivated violent extremism was higher than in the U.S. and the U.K., and had risen during the pandemic.
I'm going to leave it there, Chair, because I think we need to vote on this and then deal with our drafting instructions before 5:30.