Public Safety Committee on June 9th, 2021

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

We would prospectively be moving the agenda and possibly not completing the Levesque study in time to have it back to the House. That's one consequence, I suppose.

I agree with the idea of focusing right away on the issue, given its currency.

What strikes me, Pam, and others, is what's on the minds of people in the Muslim community, in particular today. Now, in the aftermath of the shock, I think people are very moved and are receiving condolences and prayers and support. However, I spoke to the president of the Muslim Association of Newfoundland and Labrador just before this meeting, and what they're interested in hearing is concrete action. They want to see concrete things done.

In the House today, Brian Masse, the member for Windsor, asked a question, and after question period asked to table a series of recommendations that were made two years ago during a committee on how to deal with hate speech, and it was rejected.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Jack.

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

What I'm going to say is....

Do I have the floor or not?

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

I'm interrupting you. You still have the floor, but I'm interrupting you anyway, because I want to make sure that the clerk will alert us to the time so that I can manage our time.

I will wind you down, Jack, if I need to wind you down.

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

You may have robbed me of some momentum, but I wasn't planning a long speech.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Jack, I would never, never rob you of momentum.

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

This is a very serious matter, so I don't want to treat any of it lightly.

I did want to focus on the fact that if we're going to do this, I don't know if we're going to be able to finish this IMVE study. There are lots of contentions or contortions about all the various aspects of it that we've already wondered about, whether they're ideologically motivated or religiously motivated or whatever. I would prefer to ask both of the proposed witnesses—and I don't disagree with the witnesses—to come and ask them specifically.

We know the horrors of anti-Semitism and the effects thereof, as well as clearly what's before us, the horrors of what's called Islamophobia, which is literally the fear of Islam. I think it's really more of an Islamic hatred than a phobia. I don't know where that name actually came from.

What I would like to do is to ask these individuals to address that question specifically: What is it that they would like to see us report or recommend to government from the various ideas that are out there? We can do something specific on that, which may result in a motion to do a, b, c, and d, but do that separately, not as part of the larger study, because all these other questions start coming into it then.

There are lots of things out there. People want to see a crackdown on hate speech on the Internet. There are various things I've heard. Let's ask them what they think we should recommend, and compress it, not into part of a study that we may or may not get to finish, because events seem to overtake committee business during this time of the calendar. Let's see if we can do it, even if we hear witnesses on one day and explore options, and then on another day, the second day, listen to proposals and try to do a mini report or motion that would contain several proposals.

That would be much more preferable to me, and I think much more doable and efficient than just carrying on with that study that may never get to Parliament because of the time involved for translation and reports and all that goes with it.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Those are good points, all.

We're probably hovering at around 10 minutes right now.

I take note that we could bump the Levesque study scheduled for the 16th to the 23rd, which is when the other IMVE study was scheduled. For the Wednesday, you're essentially switching dates. Really, the only date that would be possibly lost would be on the border issue.

I see four hands, plus I understand that Ms. Larouche wants to speak as well. She is in the room all by her lonesome.

I saw Ms. Khera first and then Mr. Lightbound, and then I'll go to Madam Larouche.

[Kamal Khera, Liberal, Brampton West, ON]

Thanks, Chair. I think my hand was up from before.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Joël, go ahead

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

I will be quick, Mr. Chair. Since 2014, a total of 21 Canadians have lost their lives at the hands of ideologically motivated violent extremists, not including the victims of the attack in London. That's more than any other form of extremism.

In terms of concrete steps parliamentarians can take, we need to hold these meetings and invite representatives of the National Council of Canadian Muslims. As Mr. Harris suggested, we should ask them what concrete actions they want us to take to fight the scourges of Islamophobia, anti-Semitism and racism in Canada.

This would also be an opportunity for them to go on the record before a parliamentary committee, given what a timely and sensitive issue this is. That is something concrete that we, as parliamentarians, can do. I support Ms. Damoff's motion or a similar motion to move up the meetings we already had scheduled to discuss this issue.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

We all have votes in 20 minutes.

I want to look at the clerk here. Do we have up to 20 minutes—presumably less than 20 minutes—to talk about this motion?

[The Clerk of the Committee, Mr. Mark D'Amore]

There are nine minutes remaining before the vote.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

We'll carry this on for four more minutes and then leave the meeting.

My apologies to the witnesses, but I'm sure the witnesses can appreciate the timeliness of this particular motion.

With that, I'll turn to Madam Larouche.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

I would like to clarify something, Mr. Chair.

As I understand it, since the motion put forward today was not put on 48 hours' notice, unanimous consent is needed to extend the study.

Since we could, as a result of the vote, end up sitting past June 23, the motion would be subject to the discussions currently being had by the whips, in terms of figuring out whether committees can extend into the summer or not. Those talks are under way.

As you said not that long ago, Mr. Chair, this would mean postponing the study on Ms. Levesque until June 23 and not completing the border report.

I want to give this decision proper consideration. I believe the committee has already met a few times on violent extremism. The parties had agreed on a certain number of meetings, so I wanted to make that point for everyone's benefit as we prepare to vote.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Mr. Motz, you have the last two minutes.

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

Thank you, Chair.

This is an issue that has grown and doesn't appear to be ending any time soon.

I think that as much as we need to hear from those, as Joël indicated and Pam laid out in her motion, nothing prevents the government....

We've talked about action. Of the things we hear between now and June 23, and even if we sit in the summer when Parliament isn't sitting, nothing is going to be actionable unless the government decides to act on it. The government doesn't need our committee to tell it to take some action. It can do that on its own. We have to be mindful of that. Yes, we need to hear from witnesses. We need to hear from those communities that are being impacted and we can learn.

That's important, but I think it's important for everyone to understand that our committee hearing these in the order we need to hear them and how that all looks.... Yes, we have to try to get a lot of work in a short period of time, but that does not preclude the government from taking action now, in advance.

I just want that to be very clear and on the record.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

I'm just about to suspend. Correct me if I'm wrong, Mr. Clerk. I have lots of fun with suspensions and adjournments, but I think I'm suspending. We'll reconvene after the vote.

I interpret the conversation as waiving the 48 hours and that we are into the debate and the substance of the matter. I would like to get a conclusion, if you will, shortly after the vote, so we can respect our witnesses. I still have to get clarification from the clerk as to whether we will save the time, if you will, and still have a full two hours with the committee.

Could you clarify that, Mr. Clerk? We'll clarify it, I guess, after the vote.

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

I will have a point of order after we get back, Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Okay.

With that, we'll have to leave this meeting and go back to the House.

The meeting is suspended.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

[Technical difficulty—Editor] bring up a point of order, I believe, or some point.

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

Yes. It was a point of order. I said that I would have a point of order when we came back. You seemed to be making a ruling just before we left, and I wanted to clarify it.

I understand your ruling was that there was unanimous consent for the motion to be debated, thereby removing the requirement for 48 hours' notice. But that does not mean there needs to be unanimous consent for the motion, or a version of it, to be passed.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

That's correct.

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

That is correct.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Yes.