Public Safety Committee on Dec. 14th, 2021

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

My intention was to have both agencies.

Chair, I think there are others who had their hands up before me, but if you want to recognize me, that's fine.

[The Clerk]

If I may, Mr. Chair, Mr. MacGregor raised his hand earlier.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jim Carr]

Mr. MacGregor, the floor is yours.

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

Thank you, Chair.

I think we can find a compromise here. We do have to be mindful of the order from the House, which does, in part (d) of its motion, specify a period of three hours. I think there's a relatively easy fix whereby we take Ms. Damoff's amendment to this motion, make a quick change to the number of hours and go from two to three. Because of the constraints on where committees can meet and the House resources that we have, we may have to spread it over two meetings, but as long as we get the three hours so that we honour the House motion and what Ms. Michaud's intent is with her motion directing this committee's study, I would submit that we compromise and amend Ms. Damoff's amendment so that it reads three hours and includes the RCMP and CBSA.

I hope committee members will agree to that as a quick fix, and I'll leave it at that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jim Carr]

Mr. McKinnon, your hand is up.

[Ron McKinnon, Liberal, Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd certainly like to support Mr. MacGregor's comments. I just want to observe to the committee that we don't need to get overly litigious about the particular times and particular meetings. We have the scope to add and adjust as we go forward. The House motion does not require us to have these three-hour sessions with the minister and the RCMP in one fell swoop. They can be spread out over time. We can absolutely honour the intent of the House motion, but I would recommend that we don't get too bound up in particular dates and times at this time. We can adjust as we go forward so that we can get a full and robust study before us.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jim Carr]

Thank you.

Mr. Van Popta, did you have your hand up?

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

I think my question has been answered. I would support what Mr. MacGregor is saying, but I want to speak in favour of having two separate meetings if that's what is required. It's a very important study, and I think that we need to give it the time it requires.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jim Carr]

Thank you.

Mr. Noormohamed, your hand is up. The floor is yours.

[Taleeb Noormohamed, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

In respect of what Mr. MacGregor and Mr. McKinnon said, I think we may wish to take advantage of the fact that the House motion is not specific to having a three-hour block. Our ability to potentially have those conversations spread over one or two different sessions will allow us the time to consider what we have heard.

I would support what Mr. McKinnon is saying. I think it does allow the committee to do its work in perhaps a more extensive way.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jim Carr]

Ms. Damoff, you've heard the discussion around the detail of your first amendment. Are you supportive of what the consensus seems to be? Could you articulate that consensus...?

Oh, I have another hand up. Go ahead, Mr. Shipley.

[Doug Shipley, Conservative, Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte, ON]

Thank you very much.

I don't want to belabour this issue too much. I agree with what Mr. MacGregor is saying. I like the tone of it, especially since we're all heading into Christmas time and conciliatory efforts are great. Thank you, Mr. MacGregor.

By the same point, Mr. McKinnon, I think that sometimes the devil's in the details. I think that sometimes around this table we need to decide now what we're doing and when we're doing it, going forward. Sometimes it clears up a lot of confusion down the road. As much as I hate to sit here in the minutiae of it and waste time on planning meetings and times—because we really want to get into the study and make some resolution—I think today is the day we sit here and figure out exactly where we're going as a committee. Let's get it figured out.

I think Mr. MacGregor has us on the right track. Let's just get the details down and know where we're going as we move into the new year. That's my opinion on it.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jim Carr]

I think we've had a pretty robust discussion.

Ms. Damoff, I'll give you what might be the last word in this discussion before we go to a vote. You can summarize the consensus that I think is discernible around the table, and then we'll move.

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

Thanks, Chair.

The vote we're doing right now is only on removing paragraph (a), but the second part is contingent on that. I'm in agreement that three hours is appropriate. When we get to paragraph (b), I will not move to change that to two hours.

The intent will be that the RCMP and the CBSA appear together at one meeting for three hours. For any of you who have been in these meetings, you know that three hours for those two agencies is more than ample time to deal with the issues that will be before us.

Right now we're only dealing with paragraph (a). The motion right now is to remove paragraph (a) from the motion in front of us.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jim Carr]

I believe that we have consensus. Clerk, how do you want to proceed with a vote on the first amendment?

[The Clerk]

We can have a recorded division, sir, unless there's unanimous consent.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jim Carr]

Do we have unanimous consent? Does anybody disagree with the proposed amendment?

Hearing none, I would say we have unanimous consent. Excellent. That's a great start, everybody.

(Amendment agreed to)

Madam Damoff, let's go to the second amendment.

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

Thanks, Chair.

In paragraph (b), the change would be to delete the words “plan, prior to the holiday break, to”, and then it would start with “invite representatives from the Canada Border Services Agency and union representatives of the agency employees” and add the words “and the RCMP”. The rest is “to appear for a period of three hours and that this meeting be held no later than February 4, 2022”.

The two agencies who would have a great deal to say on this issue would appear before our committee prior to February 4, and the meeting would be for three hours.

I would propose that if the House administration does not have the capability to do a three-hour meeting during that week of February 4, we have the ability to have a two-hour and a one-hour meeting. Regardless of how the logistics work, it would be for three hours, as proposed by Madame Michaud.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jim Carr]

Would this honour the spirit of the resolution of the House?

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

That's correct.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jim Carr]

Let's open the floor to discussion of the second amendment.

Who would like to speak to it? I don't see any hands up. Clerk, do you?

[The Clerk]

No, sir—

I see Ms. Dancho, sir.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jim Carr]

Ms. Dancho, the floor is yours.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm sorry. I'm just not clear on it. The first motion that we moved was to combine.... It's paragraph (a) that I'm looking at here. Is that correct? Are we just changing it from two hours, as listed on your document, to three hours?

[The Chair, Liberal, Jim Carr]

The second amendment proposes three hours in a combined meeting with the CBSA and the RCMP.