Public Safety Committee on Nov. 7th, 2024

[Jennifer O'Connell, Liberal, Pickering—Uxbridge, ON]

I was recognized by the chair.

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

I think you started the heckling, so—

[Jennifer O'Connell, Liberal, Pickering—Uxbridge, ON]

She can't speak to a subamendment that was ruled out of order.

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

—again, if I continue to get cut off, Mr. Chair—

[Jennifer O'Connell, Liberal, Pickering—Uxbridge, ON]

She can go back to the amendment that we are debating.

That's how the rules work.

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

I believe I have the floor.

[Jennifer O'Connell, Liberal, Pickering—Uxbridge, ON]

I get that she wants them rewritten for herself when they're not convenient, but that is how the rules work.

[Iqwinder Gaheer, Liberal, Mississauga—Malton, ON]

Ms. Damoff, you also had a point of order.

[Raquel Dancho, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

I actually have two things, Chair.

It is so disrespectful to the interpreters when Ms. Dancho is talking over Ms. O'Connell. We can't possibly expect our interpreters to be able to make any sense of what's being said. Given the injuries that interpreters have had, I would hope that all members would be respectful and would wait to be recognized by the chair.

My point of order was the same as Ms. O'Connell's, Chair, that you've ruled on the subamendment that Ms. Dancho wanted to speak to. If she wants to speak to the amendment that Mr. MacGregor has brought forward, she still has the floor. However, she can't keep returning to the subamendment that she wants to speak to, unless she wants to challenge your decision, Chair.

[Iqwinder Gaheer, Liberal, Mississauga—Malton, ON]

Thank you, Ms. Damoff.

I do agree. We know there have been incidents with the interpreters, with crosstalk. I would ask all members to respect the interpreters and all the great work they do, and to not engage in cross-talk. If you're recognized by the chair, then you can speak.

Ms. Dancho, you have the floor.

Again, the subamendment is out of order, and I ask you to return to what we're discussing on the floor.

Thank you.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I think if I was allowed to speak more than a few words without being cut off by Liberal members who are trying to silence members of the opposition, then I would be able to make my point.

I would remind you, Mr. Chair, that they were Liberal members, over the past year, who caused such disarray. In fact, it was Ms. O'Connell who caused such disarray that the Chair had to adjourn the meeting. I can't imagine the impact that had on the interpreters, given how unprofessional the conduct was by Liberal members that day.

On the amendment by Mr. MacGregor, again, the motion is about trying to have a schedule. That is the point of bringing this forward. That is why Mr. Motz brought this forward. The NDP's amendment is to further clarify that schedule. We agree with their amendment, in fact. Again, I think that if Liberal, NDP, Conservative or Bloc members would like to have other things added to the schedule—again, the objective of this motion is to create a schedule for this committee, of some kind—then they're welcome to do so.

That's why I tried to bring in the latest issue that I was just talking about. I think it's quite shocking, actually, that Liberal members don't want to talk about a bomb threat on Parliament Hill plotted by ISIS terrorists. I actually did not anticipate that. I thought this would be roundly supported, in fact.

[Raquel Dancho, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

I have a point of order, Chair.

[Iqwinder Gaheer, Liberal, Mississauga—Malton, ON]

Ms. Damoff, go ahead on a point of order.

[Raquel Dancho, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

We keep returning to a subamendment that's been ruled out of order. This was not the Liberals voting down an amendment.

I think we need to be clear that Ms. Dancho keeps returning to a subamendment that's been ruled out of order, and she is now putting misinformation out there about us not supporting it, which is not part of the record.

[Iqwinder Gaheer, Liberal, Mississauga—Malton, ON]

Mr. Gerretsen, go ahead on a point of order.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

For your benefit, Mr. Chair, I want to make sure that it is understood where we are right now.

We are on an amendment to the original motion. The problem with Ms. Dancho's rationale, as to why she was proposing it and wanted to put it forward, is that it is premised on the notion that the amendment will pass. That's why you can't bring forward a subamendment that assumes the amendment will pass when it's not related to it.

I don't think there's anything wrong with what she's bringing forward; it's just not at the right time.

[Iqwinder Gaheer, Liberal, Mississauga—Malton, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Gerretsen.

I've made the point already that I asked Ms. Dancho to stay within the confines of the motion itself. I understand that this is more of a scheduling motion.

I just want to say at the outset that as the new clerk, I hope to—

[A voice]

You're the new chair.

[The Chair]

What did I say—clerk?

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Chair]

I'll get used to this.

[Iqwinder Gaheer, Liberal, Mississauga—Malton, ON]

As the new chair, I will see the lay of the land and work with the clerk to present potentially some sort of outlook on what meetings we're going to have. When I look at the meetings on Russia and India, these are obviously very dynamic and robust topics. I think that's why it was built into the motions that we can seek further meetings, depending on what witnesses say and depending on how the committee feels about those.

Ms. Dancho, you still have the floor.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I appreciate that. Thank you for committing to attempt to bring forward a calendar. We very much hope to have a chair who resumes that practice. It was quite helpful. It actually ensured that we were an efficient committee who really got into a lot of issues.

Again, we support the motion. We really have no reason to put additional remarks on the floor. We've addressed why this motion was brought forward. That's why we support the amendment from the NDP. In our minds, it was implied that we were going to continue India. We had agreed to six meetings. But we appreciate the clarification, which is why we agree with Mr. MacGregor's amendment. We are happy to proceed.

Again, unless there are more efforts to filibuster this from Liberal members, unless they're saying that they don't agree with this motion, then I hope we can go to a vote, set this schedule and get to the reason for today's meeting, which is the Standing Order 106(4) letter, as you well know, Mr. Chair.

I do hope we can come to an agreement on this motion. In terms of how it was framed, I've certainly seen far more partisan motions in my life. It was an effort to get everybody to agree to something. Certainly, I very much hope we can do that. Hopefully, we can finish the Bloc Québécois study, because that was an excellent study and certainly an important issue. I recognize that this has sort of derailed a little bit of the time we would have had. I think we'll need a little bit more time than what was scheduled, but hopefully we can get a study across the finish line. That would be great.

I will conclude my remarks, Mr. Chair. I do hope we can come together and agree on a plan forward. That's certainly the object or the goal that we had in mind here. I hope we can proceed to that goal and vote soon, hopefully.

[Iqwinder Gaheer, Liberal, Mississauga—Malton, ON]

Thank you, Ms. Dancho.

Ms. Damoff is next in the speaking order.

[Raquel Dancho, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Thank you, Chair.

I'm actually happy to weigh in on this, having just spent last week in Poland, Estonia and Latvia on a parliamentary delegation led by a Conservative senator, Senator Wells.

It's pertinent to what we're talking about today, because I was really disheartened that the Conservatives wanted to limit this study on Russia and have twice brought forward motions when we were doing this study that interrupted expert witnesses who we had in front of us.

One of the things that struck me when I was there was how seriously people in those countries take Russian interference and Russian misinformation and disinformation, far more seriously than we do, even though as a country that's an Arctic nation we are at threat by Russia. We are at threat by the way they conduct misinformation and disinformation. It's something that's far more extensive than what we've heard thus far at committee.

To be very honest with you, I left that trip, which focused primarily on what's going on in Ukraine and the fight that Ukrainians are putting on, and I.... We heard from Jānis Sārts, director of the NATO Strategic Communications Centre of Excellence. He talked to us about what they call cognitive warfare. Right now, in Europe, Canada and the United States, Russia is conducting cognitive warfare against us. They've been at it for 10 years—over 10 years.

What I found disturbing was the fact that they told us that China is starting to piggyback on that Russian interference, that the Russian strategy is to target the west, and that China is not nearly as capable as Russia, but what they do is they push the Russian narrative. They push the Russian narrative primarily on TikTok and Telegram.

What we heard about TikTok was quite disturbing. It was in the context of Russian misinformation and disinformation and how China is using TikTok to amplify what Russia is putting out there and how TikTok has the best targeting algorithm of all the social media companies. To be honest, that's why I'm looking forward to having TikTok return to the committee to talk to us and being able to ask some questions about this algorithm. What we heard—what I heard and the delegation heard—is that prebunking is far more effective.

As I listen to the Conservative member talk about programming and how important doing a study on gender-based violence is, I couldn't agree with her more. It is really important to study that. I know that the committee agreed to it, but I think the public needs to know that it is being studied right now at the status of women committee. We are hearing from witnesses. Just this week, we'll be hearing from more witnesses on that exact issue. It's not that the issue is going unattended to.

I feel strongly that we need to be looking at not limiting that Russia study to eight meetings, which is what the Conservatives did when they brought forward their motion. I appreciate my friend and colleague Mr. MacGregor's amendment and not putting time limits on these studies.

That's why, Chair, at the very start of this meeting, I asked for clarification on that: because the intent of the original Conservative motion was to limit the number of meetings. Given what I've just heard over the last week.... In Estonia, we heard from the director general of police and border services and elected representatives. In Latvia, we heard from three experts on Russia and misinformation and disinformation.

It's not just about the war. As I said, it's cognitive warfare that's being conducted by Russia. I want to stress that there's a lot more we haven't heard or even thought about as a committee in terms of the Russia study and that I think is important to get in front of us.

With that, I've put my thoughts on the record.

Thank you, Chair.