Public Safety Committee on June 16th, 2022

[The Clerk]

Yes, Mr. MacGregor, it's indeed the case. Yes, it would be possible, if required by the committee. Exceptionally, we would be able to hold the meeting.

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

That was my only question.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jim Carr]

Go ahead, Ms. Damoff.

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

Mr. Chair, I'll defer to Ms. Michaud, and then I'll go.

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

Thank you, Ms. Damoff.

I know that if it's urgent, we can arrange for the committee to meet. However, the resources of the House require three weeks a year to do maintenance work on the system and reprogram it so that everything is ready for the next session of Parliament.

I understand that the committee wants to meet for four hours, because we have a lot of witnesses to hear. However, with all due respect to the resources of the House, I think we could postpone the meeting until after the commissioner's testimony.

I will have to vote against the subamendment. I agree that the committee should meet for four hours, but I do not agree with the timing of the meeting, unfortunately. If we could separate the two proposals, we could reach a compromise. Otherwise, I will be obliged to vote against the subamendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jim Carr]

Mr. Shipley, I see your hand up.

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

I'm sorry, Chair. I was next. I deferred to Ms. Michaud.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jim Carr]

Madam Damoff, go ahead.

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

Thanks, Chair.

As a further comment to Ms. Dancho's, we wouldn't support a half-hour break in between each panel as well. That's getting into quite a lengthy meeting. We don't normally do that.

The other thing I think we need to be mindful of is that the five individuals who've been asked to testify, and who are now being asked to testify for two hours, are individuals who were deeply traumatized by what happened in Nova Scotia. They have publicly acknowledged that they have had mental health issues following that, and we're asking them to then appear for two hours at our committee. I think we should be mindful of that and give the option of one or two hours in order to be respectful of the mental health challenges they've had.

I'm not quite sure how we deal with that in the motion, but I wanted to raise that as a concern for all of us. I know that the members of this committee do take the mental health of our public safety officers very seriously, especially these individuals who have experienced so much trauma.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jim Carr]

Yes, Mr. Shipley.

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

Thank you, Chair.

I really think this is an extremely important issue for a lot of people, starting with the people who were involved with this incident and the people who lost loved ones in this incident, the residents of Nova Scotia and all Canadians.

There are some serious allegations out there right now, and I think it is our job, our duty, to look into these allegations as soon as possible. The fact that we're discussing putting it off is quite shocking to me. The House has indicated that the resources would be available for the week after July 4. To put it off for six weeks minimum is just not doing our jobs properly. I think it's the sooner the better to look into these serious allegations, find out what happened and move forward.

I'll be supporting doing this as soon as we possibly can, keeping in mind that, yes, we won't do it next week when the memorial is on—I think that's respectful—but the week after that, I think, would be more than fine. I think we owe it to people—we owe it to Canadians—to find out what really happened and move forward.

Thank you, Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jim Carr]

Ms. Dancho.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I agree with my colleague Mr. Shipley about the urgency of this.

I don't think that provides answers for Canadians or the families of victims who have likely been shocked by the information at the Mass Casualty Commission.

I do appreciate Ms. Damoff's comments about the mental health of the witnesses, certainly. We do know from the testimony that was reported that they also suffered as a result of the meeting with Commissioner Lucki, who, from the testimony, was seen that to be under significant pressure. To quote the testimony as written by Superintendent Campbell, she was very “upset”, and that was stressed consistently in the reporting of the Mass Casualty Commission's findings of the written testimony from Mr. Campbell.

Again, I think that some of the responsibility for the impact on these individuals would seem to lie with those who were putting the pressure on them to reveal information and to interfere for political purposes in a criminal investigation. That is why we should be meeting urgently to discuss this matter.

Again, I would just reiterate that to wait five, six or maybe even seven—we're not sure—weeks is inappropriate and unacceptable, frankly.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jim Carr]

Thank you.

Are there other comments from members of the committee?

Mr. Lloyd, go ahead.

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I wanted to address one of the points that Ms. Damoff raised. It is going to be a long four-hour meeting, and if we don't have any recesses between the panels, it's going to be very long for us and for the witnesses.

I think the IT team is probably going to have to work to get.... Because maybe all these people won't be here physically and they'll be here virtually, there is going to be a 10- to 20-minute period to get these witnesses on. I just think that there's no reason why we shouldn't have a 30-minute recess so that people can go and get a coffee or go to the bathroom, just so we can have time to get the witnesses changed over. I don't see why there would be a problem with having a 30-minute recess in this case, since we probably are going to be taking 10 to 15 minutes to get the witnesses changed over anyway. I would stand by that subamendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jim Carr]

Are there other comments from members of the committee on the subamendment?

If not, Clerk, would you please administer the vote?

(Subamendment negatived: nays 6; yeas 5 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

The subamendment is defeated. We now move back to Ms. Damoff's amendment to the main motion.

Do we have speakers who wish to resume debate?

Ms. Dancho, off you go.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Just to be clear, we are now looking at a situation in which this meeting is to follow up on the recent testimony from the Mass Casualty Commission that there was political interference from the Liberal government and pressure put on the RCMP to interfere in a criminal investigation. The Liberal position currently is to wait over four, five, maybe six weeks to hear from those witnesses, to take those 10 witnesses—pardon me, nine witnesses—and put them in a three-hour meeting, five to six weeks from now. That's nine witnesses in three hours.

Also, they refuse to allow a member of the Prime Minister's Office to attend. They're avoiding accountability on this. I'm actually quite shocked that members of the Liberal Party on this committee are so keen to avoid transparency on this. It's very disappointing, Mr. Chair.

The amendment as it stands now is completely unacceptable and certainly does not do justice for the victims' families, who are continuing to be shocked and traumatized by this.

I would ask committee members that we move forward on something better than waiting until over a month from now, squeezing nine witnesses into three hours, and preventing the Prime Minister's Office, which has been accused twice in the testimony, from appearing. They need to face accountability. We need to be transparent, and this needs to be a fulsome investigation, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jim Carr]

Mr. Lloyd, you're next.

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB]

Mr. Chair, I would note that Ms. Damoff had indicated earlier that she would be supportive of extending the three hours to four hours. I think there's an indication that there would be a recess, but we just wouldn't need to specify that it would be 30 minutes. It would be subject to the will of the committee, I believe, for a period of time between the panels so that members could take the appropriate time to reflect and to think about the testimony they're hearing, take a break and go to the washroom.

I would say I will move a subamendment, which I think will get support, that we extend this to a four-hour meeting. Then we can just clear that out of the way.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jim Carr]

Okay. We now have a subamendment on the table, as just articulated by Mr. Lloyd.

Is there commentary on the subamendment?

Mr. Noormohamed.

[Taleeb Noormohamed, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

I was simply going to say that it makes good sense to do that. I think it allows us to ensure that we not lose time while we change panels and so on, and it provides, I think, a good compromise for us to move forward.

I think it's a good thing.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jim Carr]

Okay.

Are there other comments?

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB]

I just want to clarify something, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jim Carr]

Go ahead.

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB]

If there is any recess time in that, we just want to clarify that it is not taken away from the four hours of meetings. There will be four hours of witness testimony total. I just want to get that on the record.