Public Safety Committee on Nov. 28th, 2024

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

I appreciate the amendment, but I would say we have moved a number of studies that are not being pursued. They are just thrown in the heap with the rest, and we haven't gotten to them.

My concern with removing the priority mention is that that's going to happen to this one. Everyone can vote in favour of this and feel good about it, but then it's not going to be prioritized by the committee. I'll note that the Bloc moved their motion; we approved it, and all of a sudden, it's on the agenda, whereas there have been other motions that Conservatives have brought forward that have been sidelined despite apparent approval at this committee. My concern is that that's going to happen with this one if there isn't an immediate priority put on it.

Mr. Chair, I made the case that I think we should at the very least commit to one meeting on this to start the study before the holidays. I'm not sure if that is the Liberals' intention or not, but that would influence how we proceed on this amendment, if I could get that commitment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Iqwinder Gaheer]

I'm seeing no.

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

I would just say, as I did when I introduced the amendment, that the justice committee has done a study on this, and we haven't seen that yet. I think Mr. MacGregor was part of that study, if I'm not mistaken.

It's not as though the government, or Parliament, I should say, has not been studying this issue. I'm quite comfortable leaving this amendment as I've tabled it, Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Iqwinder Gaheer]

Ms. Dancho.

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

Thank you.

Again, I don't believe the justice committee had a focus on the terrorist plots or certainly the rioting in Montreal. Given these are squarely the responsibility of public safety and national security, I think it's imperative that we focus on this.

I think it sends a message that the public safety and national security committee has not done anything on this at all, given the terrorist plots and given the escalation of what were protests and are now becoming riots. I couldn't support something that's going to put this off, and we well know in this committee that it could take years, if ever, for a report to come out. From my perspective, that's just veiled language to say we'll put this off. There's no guarantee that a report's going to come out, none at all, and members of the Liberal Party are well aware of that. That's just not something we could support, since that report may never come out.

If we can get a commitment to start the study reasonably, at least one meeting before then, I think we can move forward.

[The Chair, Liberal, Iqwinder Gaheer]

Mr. MacGregor.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I just want to get on the record, as someone who signed the original 106(4) letter calling for an emergency meeting on this subject, that I do believe it's important.

In terms of how we schedule stuff, over the last number of weeks we have had three proposals from the Conservatives, including this one. A couple of weeks ago, we were debating a programming motion that would have looked at the rise in violence against women and also at the intersection between public safety and mental health. Last week in the House of Commons, there was an attempt to get the firearms study referred back to this committee as a priority, and now we're trying to establish this as a priority.

They're all good ideas, and I'm not criticizing them, but I think what's needed, Mr. Chair, is maybe an off-line or a subcommittee meeting. We need to figure out the calendar. I think Ms. Dancho has expressed frustration on this. We have all these great ideas on the table, and we've said yes to a number of them, but it can be a bit frustrating, and I share her frustration at times, when we're not quite sure how we're making decisions on what study is coming forward.

For me, I attach a lot of importance to our current India study. I'm the person who brought forward the motion to get it started, and I think a lot of people in Canada are very interested in that. I'm always a fan of trying to get current business completed, but I think there's room to possibly get one meeting in on this subject. I'm not sure, because we haven't had those fulsome discussions yet on how we organize our calendar.

That's just something for us as a committee to collectively think about.

[The Chair, Liberal, Iqwinder Gaheer]

Thank you.

I've looked at the calendar and I think we have five meetings before we break. I'm also a fan of completing what's on the docket, although obviously, I understand that important issues do arise.

I recognize Madame Michaud.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm not opposed to this motion. My only concern is that the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights seems to have done a similar study recently. That study took up a lot of time, and it was filibustered by the government and the Conservative Party. I don't want us to end up seeing the same thing here. We are already studying very important issues, such as interference in the electoral process by agents of India and interference by Russia. However, there seems to be partisanship in both cases. I don't know what the purpose of this motion is, but if it's to achieve the same result as the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, I don't see the point.

That's why I think the amendment proposed by the government to reduce the number of meetings to four seems more reasonable to me. Also, Ms. Dancho was kind enough to put forward witnesses that were suggested by the government in previous amendments. So I think an interesting consensus is emerging.

It's normal for the study on border security proposed by the Bloc Québécois to take precedence. According to the motion proposing this study, it will have priority over other studies.

In fact, I would like you to clarify something, Mr. Chair. You said there were five meetings left before the holidays. What is the schedule between now and the holiday break? Will we be able to start the study on border security?

Otherwise, I don't see any problem with adopting the amendment and the motion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Iqwinder Gaheer]

Thank you, Madame Michaud.

On Tuesday, the minister is appearing. On Thursday, we have a summons for Patrick Brown that will go out.

We have actually invited the ambassadors for your study. We haven't received a response yet. That's been the issue. Once we have that response, we should be able to get in at least that meeting with the ambassadors before we rise for the break. That's sort of where we are right now.

We're already over time, to be honest. If we can get a vote in, I think we should do the vote. If we're going to have a discussion, then the meeting is over.

Mr. Motz.

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

I think we really have to accept the gravity of what happened. This is Parliament Hill. We had a bomb plot on Parliament Hill. The seriousness of that, the Canadian public's perception of that and then the role of this committee in not examining that.... I mean, this is supposed to be the heart of democracy in this country, yet it doesn't seem to be taken seriously by the current government, unfortunately. Canadians feel that this is an important issue. I have constituents who were outraged at what was happening here.

Whether we have four meetings or eight meetings, we need to have some meetings. We need to give this some attention.

I'm sure our study will not be the same as the justice study. It'll be different. I think that's good. I think there will be parts of it that might overlap.

We can't just brush this off and hope that it goes away. We certainly need to at least show good faith that we are starting this process before we break for the holiday season and then bring this back, along with some of the other studies that are important as well.

I just think that where there's a will, there's a way. Let's exercise the will to make this happen.

[The Chair, Liberal, Iqwinder Gaheer]

Ms. O'Connell.

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

Since we're out of resources, I move to adjourn.

[The Chair, Liberal, Iqwinder Gaheer]

There's a motion to adjourn.

Are we good with that?

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Chair, do we have a choice? Are we out of resources?

[The Chair, Liberal, Iqwinder Gaheer]

We've made the request. We have a couple of minutes.

We'll know in the next five minutes whether we have additional resources and for how long. I am aware that it's Thursday and folks have flights out as well.

[George Chahal, Liberal, Calgary Skyview, AB]

On a point of order, Mr. Chair, I believe that's a dilatory motion that Ms. O'Connell brought forward, so we have to proceed to a vote.

(Motion agreed to: yeas 6; nays 5)

[The Chair, Liberal, Iqwinder Gaheer]

The meeting is adjourned.