Public Safety Committee on May 5th, 2021

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

Chair, can I make a comment, please?

It's in regard to suspending the meeting or adjourning it for a later date. I know we've been here for a long time today, but I think to demonstrate the importance of this particular motion and the whole idea of extremism being looked at and addressed in a timely way, I'm in favour of continuing on.

I don't think it's going to take terribly long to get through this. My hand is still up for Kristina's amendment, which I would like to speak to, but I am certainly in favour of extending this until we get this resolved.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

To get beyond 5:48, I have to have unanimous consent.

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

Chair, I'm not prepared to stay until we get this done because that could mean God knows when. I am prepared to stay for 10 minutes, if we think that this could be resolved that quickly.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

I still have to have unanimous consent to get past the time. I can see some thumbs, but it's not unanimous.

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

There are no thumbs-down.

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge Park, ON]

Mr. Chair, maybe you can ask if anybody is opposed to it because I don't see people opposed to extending the meeting.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

That's a better way to ask it.

We'll make it 15 minutes. Is anyone opposed to fifteen minutes? Okay.

Glen, you're up.

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

Thank you very much, Chair, and I thank Kristina.... First of all, I'll thank Pam for the motion, an add my comments about needing to get at all forms of extremism. We need to deal with that.

I have a couple of things. As far as timing, I'd certainly like to honour the decisions of the subcommittee and would propose a friendly amendment to Kristina's amendment, but I want to bring out a couple of things.

This is an important study. I want to preface that before I say what I'm going to say. In the last five years, there have been 2,800-plus shootings in Toronto alone. That's not the GTA, but Toronto alone. There have been 361 people injured in that time in those shootings and over 82 people have been killed in that time. As far as emergency debates, there are a lot of things that are emergent that are affecting Canadians immediately. They are no more important or no less important than this particular study.

We also have other studies on our agenda. I would suggest that we can continue on with the agenda we have, which goes until the beginning of June, if I'm correct. At that time, we can move into four meetings or whatever we decide with this particular motion and we are still going to be timely. We're still going to be responsible with a very important issue.

Kristina, if you're amicable to a friendly amendment to your amendment, I'm proposing that we strike the “no later than May 10th” and after where it says “ideologically motivated violent extremism in Canada”, we add “following the conclusion of the other work already scheduled by the May 3 subcommittee report”.

That will take us to June 2 or 7, or whatever day that is. Everything on the subcommittee report that was decided on Monday goes ahead as planned and then immediately following, we know what our marching orders are for the remainder of June.

If you're amicable to that, those would be my comments on the amendment, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

We had a lot of amendments floating around here.

Kristina, do you perceive that as a friendly amendment to your amendment, which wasn't friendly by virtue of Pam saying it wasn't friendly in the first place?

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

Yes, absolutely. That is a very good addition.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

That part is friendly, but the amendment isn't friendly at this point.

Next is Tako, then Emmanuella and then Jack.

Tako.

[Tako Van Popta, Conservative, Langley—Aldergrove, BC]

Thank you. I'll be as quick as I can.

I want to echo what others have said, which is that I think this is a very important study and I'm happy for our committee to undertake it, but I am concerned about the timing for all the reasons that others have stated. We have so many projects on the go right now. A number of them are almost at the finish line. Let's push them over the finish line before we take on another project.

That said, I also want to echo what Glen said about gang violence. He cited some statistics out of Toronto. You know, that's hitting pretty close to home. There have been two shootings in my hometown of Langley just in the last little while, gang-related, gangland-style killings in broad daylight in shopping malls. There was another one in Delta, close by, of a police officer. This is a real and present danger, and Canadians are very concerned.

I've told many people I've spoken to that the public safety committee is going to be studying gang violence very soon and—

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

On a point of order, Chair, are we not debating the amendment on the floor?

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Yes, we are debating the amendment. We're debating the motion, and yes, I let Glen wander off on gang violence and now I'm letting Tako wander off on gang violence.

[Tako Van Popta, Conservative, Langley—Aldergrove, BC]

It's about the importance of timing. It's in the timing.

I agree with the motion.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

The motion is subject to an amendment to take it up basically after the subcommittee report, which, I think, finishes around June 2. Is that what we've agreed to at this point?

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

It's much longer than that, Chair. It's until the end of June.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

We are at an impasse.

Emmanuella.

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

Essentially what we're saying here with the amendments is that we don't really want to study this. I definitely think it's an important issue that we should study, and I completely understand and agreed with Kristina's original amendment that we should do it after finalizing the reports on the work we've already done. I don't see why we wouldn't finalize the work we've done and table certain things in the House.

It's definitely a really important issue, and I think it would be important to do once those two reports have been tabled in the House and once we finalize them. Having read the subcommittee report and knowing how long it takes us to actually go through the different reports and to complete them and accept all the recommendations, and judging by the policing study that we just finished, I would say that obviously we won't finish before the end of June all of the things that are listed on that agenda.

If we are actually serious about this being a serious topic that we want to study, I strongly encourage us to find a way forward and a way that makes sense, and not just to say “after the work that's listed in the subcommittee” because that won't allow us time to even begin this study.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

We'll go to Jack and then Damien.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm just looking at the subcommittee report here and thinking about this. I don't think we're prepared to abandon the studies we've already started. I think we do have to finish reports. Even in the amendment there's room for flexibility as we move forward. For the consolidated study we anticipated maybe three meetings. This study contemplates four meetings. We might be able to do it in three, because what we're trying to do is bring the attention of the country to this issue in a greater way than has been done by Mr. McGuinty's appearance today. I think that's a laudable goal.

I think any study of the kind that's referred to as an additional study, as Glen is talking about, certainly can't be done between now and the end of June—a whole new study like that, particularly one of that extensiveness. We don't have to drop everything to do this. If we manage to finish the 15 minutes and have to meet again, maybe we can come up with some agreement between now and Monday to have some flexibility.

By the way, I'm not sure it's going to take two full hours for drafting instructions on the Levesque study. That's something that I wanted to throw in there. It wouldn't hurt to get some briefing for an hour on Monday if we think we can deal with the drafting instructions in an hour.

Maybe I'm being wildly optimistic about that, Chair. You would know better than me, but I think if there's some room for flexibility, we can do what's on this subcommittee agenda, plus have at least three meetings—and they don't have to be all in a row—on the topic presented in the motion. I think it's very valid for us to do what we can to draw attention to this—we'll see whether someone has any way forward—and certainly to ensure the public is well aware of the threat that's been posed.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Damien.

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

Thank you, Chair.

As an observation, I think everybody I've heard speak actually agrees with the intent of the motion. The issue here is timing. In terms of the subject, in reading the NSICOP report and hearing the testimony, and from personal experience both because I'm now an elected official but also from speaking with some academics and others I know who are researching these sorts of things, the proliferation of hate-based extremism and its impact on society is absolutely astounding. Certainly there's a whole range of subjects that will be studied on top of that which won't be the subject of parliamentary review, I'm sure.

My comments are simply this. I agree with the motion, but to suggest that it should pre-empt or be prioritized over all of the other work.... I'd be happy if it could be slotted in to free meetings, or if there's a change in schedule between now and whenever the next opportunity arises. It's very important, but so are some of the other things we're doing.

I would support the amendment for the timing, but I also plan to support the general motion. So far I have not heard any opposition to it. Really, we're just debating the timing. We're not debating the substance of the motion.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Pam.

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

Thanks, Chair.

Thanks to everybody for recognizing how important this is. I would actually argue, though, that this will essentially kill the motion. It took us from February until last week to do the systemic racism report and get it back to the analyst. We haven't even seen the Levesque study yet.

I would suggest we could do one hour on Monday, May 10, after we've done drafting instructions, and then take May 31 and June 2 as two dates we can do on this study, and then go back to the work plan. We can save that fourth meeting until maybe the following Monday or the Monday after. I would not support the amendment that's been put forward because it essentially kills this motion. We will not get time to do it, unless members are prepared to sit through the summer.

It will essentially kill it, so I will absolutely not support the amendment. I think we could do one hour on May 10, two meetings the week of May 31 and June 2, and then go back to committee business. I think that would be a compromise we could make.