Public Safety Committee on May 5th, 2021

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

I think Kristina was next.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I wanted to correct what Ms. Lambropoulos said. The amendment doesn't mean that we aren't in favour of the study. I think we've all made it clear how important we think it is.

The importance of each study should not be prioritized. All the work this committee is undertaking is important. I think we need to do one thing at a time. We need to finish what we've started and, as Mr. Harris said, I don't think we need to stop everything we're doing right now to put this study forward.

If I understand the subcommittee report correctly, we were going to return on May 31 to begin a study of the Correctional Service of Canada. I don't know how many meetings are scheduled for that. However, as of May 31, there are seven meetings left. That still gives us time to do the study. I don't think this will kill the motion. In any event, I don't see what could come of holding deliberations for an hour on May 10 and beginning the rest in June.

I think we should finish what we started and fully immerse ourselves in this study afterwards. That would be the logical way to do it. In terms of the amendment, it also makes sense to say that we should finish what we have started right now and then continue with the rest.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

I think Glen was next.

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

I'll never give up my turn to speak, Chair, but I think Jack was ahead of me. I'll defer to my elders.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Do we want to hear from the left before we go right?

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

Yes.

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

I'm prepared to be flexible here. I don't know if we have to have a showdown on this. The idea of half an hour on May 10 is appealing, because that could get a start to the idea and working on it.

I'm not sure Kristina can say whether it's crucial that item seven be dealt with before May 31. We're not going to write a report on that. It might be something that could be dealt with early in June. I think, if we have the right spirit here, we can accomplish this. To say that this amendment is intended to shut down study I think is wrong. I think it's counterproductive to suggest that.

There seems to be a willingness by the committee to accommodate this study, to fit it in, but I don't think people are prepared to give up what has already been proposed and agreed on. It's just the question of finding the way to do it. I'm prepared to suggest that we only look at three meetings for the corrections study. We have three topics. They're all important. The same goes with the idea of following up on Kristina's motion. We need to do that. That's not time-sensitive in the sense that it has to be done tomorrow or next week, so we can be flexible. We can do all these things with the right will.

Maybe the amendment is a bit too specific by saying after we do all of this. I'm not going to propose an amendment to an amendment to an amendment, because the chair would rightly rule that out of order. However, I'm suggesting that we should try to find some consensus, if not today, then between now and Monday, and I agree that maybe on Monday, May 10, we can have a witness give us an initial briefing for an hour.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

That may a bit of a challenge, but nevertheless....

Go ahead, Glen.

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

I will agree with you, Chair, that it would be a challenge to get witnesses here on Monday, given we usually send the invitation, try to give them time to prepare and and whatever else. Not all of them will be in Ottawa, I'm sure, but because they could be remote it would be....

I agree with Jack. This is an important study that needs to be done. As I said previously, it is no less important or more important than some of the other things we already have on our schedule. I would sooner sit with this study for the three or four times that we are going to meet to do it, and get some meat around what we're trying to uncover, as opposed to piecemealing it over time in between other things.

There are significant issues we have to deal with. We need to get the systemic racism report finished. We need to finish the report into the death of Marylène Levesque. There's Jack's motion...actively impacting people's lives every day as we speak. Our non-work on these things will impact people's lives every single day, and it's happening in real time.

Again, I agree, Jack. I'd like to be able to find common ground that we could move forward on, but there has to be give on each side, and I would agree with your assessment. To try to paint the fact that we feel these studies should be looked at ahead of this one as meaning we don't support the motion, or we need to withdraw it, is certainly erroneous. We would not support that notion whatsoever.

Rather than spinning our wheels, let's make a decision. Let's move on and try to make a decision. What is in the report that can maybe give us a day so that we can have something before the middle of June? Is there something we need to look at that would make a difference there? I don't know the answer to that question.

Is Bastarache the one that we can just put off until we have the spare time? It's been sitting.... It was written a long time ago. It was proposed and presented to us some time ago. We already have mention of it in the systemic racism report that's coming out. Can we give up a day on it to then move up everything else on systemic racism, on Mr. Harris's motion, so that by the first or second of June we're already into four full meetings or whatever it takes, three to four meetings, of this report on extremism?

That would be reasonable give on both sides.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

I think's it Darren next and then it's either Pam or Damien.

[Darren Fisher, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I won't go on for long but I want to congratulate folks for trying to be flexible here and come up with some alternatives and some opportunities to make sure we study this. However, a 106(4) motion by its very nature is an emergency motion. It's one thing to say we all agree that this is important and we should study it, but we don't agree that it's an emergency. We either agree that this is serious...and we listened to Mr. McGuinty today and we read the report. This is either an emergency for all of us or it isn't, and we'll see that in a vote.

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

I have a point of order, Chair. This is not an emergency. It's an emergency motion. It's the motion that's urgent to get before the committee. The committee decides the level of emergency. I don't think that was mentioned exactly in the rules.

[Darren Fisher, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

That was—

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

I'm not sure you are contradicting each other.

I'm going to go to Pam.

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

Thanks, Chair.

I think people need to get their calendars out. May 31 is when we start Jack's study. We then have what's proposed with the border study, something that has already been looked at by the Auditor General. In my view, I would hardly make that an emergency. I think you need to look at your calendars. May 31 we start Jack's study. Then we have the border. Then we have the Levesque study to go through. You can't possibly say that by delaying this it will not kill the report—unless everyone on this committee is prepared to sit through the summer—because there is no way we can do the work that's proposed before we get to this study.

Either we feel that this is an important study that we need to do...and actually, the reason the Liberals sent in this letter is that we do feel that this is an emergency. We do feel that this is something that needs to take priority at this committee. It's also something that has never been studied by this committee. This is an emerging issue. I had heard about it, but I was not aware of the severity of it until I read Mr. McGuinty's report. I think every single person on this committee should be seized with studying this right away.

I mean, we can all say that we want to work together, and I'm not trying to be confrontational here, but the fact is that we will never get to this study if we do it after we do all the other work we have. Either we want to look at this pressing issue...which Mr. McGuinty himself said was the most striking thing about the review. All you have to do is look online, at all of the issues that are there, to know that.

I know we're only debating the amendment here, so I'm getting ahead of myself, except to say that if we remove the words that we start “immediately” and start on “May 10th”, we will in fact effectively kill this motion, unless we decide right now that we're going to pick some other dates to do it at the end of May and the beginning of June. Otherwise, this will never happen.

Thanks, Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Damien.

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

Thank you, Chair.

With respect, I think that is a false equivalency of epic proportions. This was submitted to Parliament and to this committee before the last subcommittee meeting. To suggest somehow that we're not prioritizing this because we want to continue the good and important work...of which one of the items that we're finishing was in fact an emergency motion brought forward. I could get very political in terms of some of the delays. I won't, out of an effort to ensure that there's a degree of collaboration.

Look, this is an important issue. I think everybody's said that, although I think it's entirely reasonable for the discussion around timing. If there's not a willingness to have that discussion, then I would question the intent [Technical difficulty—Editor] when and how this was brought up.

As I've indicated, I plan to support the motion. I think if there was a more collaborative attitude to ensure that we could find some ability to get this done.... Personally, I have no problem sitting through the summer. I did it last summer. I think there are four meeting opportunities in June that are still available. If there's a level of flexibility, if witnesses cancel or evolving situations exist, I think there's a tremendous amount that can be accomplished. It's just a matter of whether or not we can in fact agree that, yes, it's important, which I think we all do, and work together to try to find a way that we can get it done.

Quite frankly, as well, this Parliament adjourns on June 23. There are options for the committee to sit throughout the summer. It's up to this committee to make that call. To suggest that it kills the study is false. Parliament then resumes sometime in September. The false equivalencies on this are troubling to me. It's an important issue. Certainly, I hope we can be collaborative on a path forward.

I would note, Mr. Chair, that we're far beyond the 15 minutes. If there's a willingness, I'd simply call that we go to a vote.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

I still see hands, but I have a note from the clerk saying that we can go to 6:30. If we go beyond 6:30, we have to suspend for a replacement of the support staff.

We seem to be down to a fairly narrow point, and that is some specificity on a date. It may or may not be useful for the committee to know that we have some challenges in getting Minister Blair and Commissioner Lucki on the 12th. We were just informed of that late today, which may possibly free up the 12th for something else.

Whether that is helpful to our deliberations or not, I can't say, but the clerk does yeoman's work in trying to fill our dates with meaningful work. I just point out that the 12th may become available. That's all I can say. It may become available.

Go ahead, Glen.

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

Thank you, Chair.

I sensed that. That's why I suggested that, on the Bastarache report with Minister Blair and Commissioner Lucki, we can hold off and move up something else that's in the report.

I just want to clarify. This is an in camera meeting—

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

No, it's not.

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

Is it not? Perfect. I want to then suggest what Mr. McGuinty said clearly today and the report clearly says, because it has been mentioned erroneously today that this domestic extremism—if you want to call it that—on Canadian soil is the top priority. If you heard Mr. McGuinty today, he did make it very clear that foreign threats are the top threats for this country and remain the top threats to this country.

That does not diminish the importance of this study and the need for this study. I just want to put that in, in referencing that it's important that we do it. The timing of it is critical. I think that if we are willing to, we can get it done, starting at the beginning of June or thereabouts and being done before Parliament rises June 23—easily—if we have a will to do so. That's the key. We all need to have the will to do so.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Jack.

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

I tend to agree. I'm not prepared to go very much longer, Chair. We've been extending and extending, but there needs to be some kind of agreement on dates, not a general agreement. The amendment before the committee doesn't leave that flexibility in an up-and-down vote, so I'm more inclined to let the meeting suspend and see if we can work something out on dates between now and Monday.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Pam.

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

Thanks, Chair.

If we could agree to dates right now—May 10, 12, 31 and June 2—then that would be fine. Mr. McGuinty did say—