Public Safety Committee on June 16th, 2022

[The Chair, Liberal, Jim Carr]

Ms. Michaud, you now have the floor.

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

Mr. Chair, I thought I was next.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jim Carr]

I believe the clerk had a different interpretation of when hands were up. As you know, I can't see the whole room.

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

I have a quick point of order, then.

I believe the Liberal member needs to move an official amendment. She has proposed it verbally, but she did not move it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jim Carr]

Ms. Damoff, do you have the intention of moving this amendment?

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

Yes. The motion would be amended to say, under point (a), “hold a three-hour meeting to hear from RCMP officials, including”; remove point (b) completely; points (i), (ii) and (iii) under (b) would remain; and that those meetings be held following the commissioner's appearance at the Mass Casualty Commission.

To be clear, the panels would be (i) to (v) under point (a) as one panel, Commissioner Lucki as one panel, and Minister Blair as one panel. That would fill out the one hour. If you want me to clarify that in the motion, I can.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jim Carr]

Are members clear on Ms. Damoff's motion as articulated?

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

Mr. Chair, I am not clear on Ms. Damoff's motion. Please clarify it once more.

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

Maybe this would be clearer. I would move that the committee hold a one-hour meeting to hear from RCMP officials, including those five named officials; hold a one-hour meeting to hear from Brenda Lucki, commissioner of the RCMP; hold a one-hour meeting to hear from the former minister of public safety and emergency preparedness Bill Blair, and deputy minister of public safety Robert Stewart; and that the three meetings be held on the same day, following the commissioner's appearance at the Mass Casualty Commission.

It would just be a—

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

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

I'm not sure if the amendment is in order. Maybe the clerk can clarify that and we can move forward.

My understanding is that 106(4) requires that the meeting happens within five days. Can the clerk clarify?

[The Chair, Liberal, Jim Carr]

The meeting within five days is the meeting we're having right now, Ms. Dancho.

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

I have a point of order.

The second vote we had was specifically to move into public to discuss the 106(4) request. We have already approved the fact that this meeting is now dealing with the 106(4).

[The Chair, Liberal, Jim Carr]

Yes. That's my understanding. We're debating it right now.

I have a list.

Madame Michaud, I believe you're next.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

First of all, I would like to thank my colleagues from the NDP and the Conservative Party for proposing this emergency meeting pursuant to Standing Order 106(4).

I understand that we are debating Ms. Damoff's amendment. Indeed, I thank her for it and agree with her on the whole.

The reason I support the changes that Ms. Damoff has proposed is mainly because of timing. We do this kind of thing in order to get answers for our citizens and for the public. Now, let's face it, during the week between Quebec's National Holiday and Canada Day, people follow the news a little less—it's summer, the holidays are coming up. So if we really want to get answers and make sure that they reach the public, for the public's sake, we should hold this meeting at a slightly better time. Also, with the memorial service that Ms. Damoff was talking about, the timing seems even less appropriate.

So we have had a rather busy session. I think, out of respect for the human resources of the House, which are stretched, we should postpone this meeting. To have it as early as next week would be rushed. Personally, I would have postponed it until the resumption of regular business in September, but I understand that it may be appropriate to hold it after Ms. Lucki's appearance before the inquiry in July. Perhaps that would be a better time.

Also, I have some questions about the French wording. I feel that the translation is not very accurate. The text talks about “meurtres collectifs,” but this is not really something that is said in French. It should be called the « tuerie de 2020 ». Secondly, I'm not sure I understand why it is proposed to study the allegations and communications. Perhaps it should be worded differently.

Apart from these details, I am in favour of the changes proposed by Ms. Damoff.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jim Carr]

Thank you, Madame Michaud.

Now I have Mr. MacGregor on the list.

Sir, go ahead.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I agree with what Ms. Damoff is proposing in terms of putting this together in a three-hour meeting.

The one part I don't agree with is the timing. I know that we, as a committee, want to be respectful of the inquiry's work, and I still think we can do that. However, the revelations that have come out from media, from Wednesday onwards, deal with an issue that Parliament needs to be seized with.

The mass shooting inquiry is dealing with the events that happened on that terrible day two years ago, but we're dealing with allegations that the commissioner of the RCMP became involved in an investigation because it was to make a point for proposed firearms legislation. That's a very serious allegation. We have many more questions than answers at this point.

I think it's possible for this committee to proceed in an orderly way that respects what the inquiry is trying to do, but that also allows us, as members of Parliament, to do our jobs to hold the government to account.

The one thing, though—and I know this might be a subamendment to the amendment—is that I think we also need to include the RCMP deputy commissioner, Brian Brennan. He is not listed here. It is mentioned that he was on the call with Commissioner Lucki. In fact, the handwritten notes from Superintendent Campbell noted that Deputy Commissioner Brennan tried to calm things down during what was a very heated call. He might add an interesting perspective. I would suggest that the deputy commissioner appear alongside the commissioner during her particular hour.

The one part I have an issue with in Ms. Damoff's amendment is the timing. I understand the value that might come from hearing the commissioner's testimony during the inquiry, and I understand that's to be a date around mid-July, but this is an issue that the country is seized with right now. Our interest, as a committee, is going to be quite different from what the inquiry is looking at.

I would support having the meeting next week and trying to find a way to be respectful of the fact that the members of the RCMP we have listed here are going to be attending a memorial for a fallen comrade. I'm sure there is a way that we can work around that. We have Canada Day at the end, but there is a way for us to find some time so that they can both attend a fallen comrade's memorial and be present for our important inquiry.

I have an issue with the date. Everything else is fine. I would suggest that we also add Deputy Commissioner Brennan to the list.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jim Carr]

Is this in the form of a subamendment to Ms. Damoff's amendment? Are you formally putting forth the subamendment now?

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

Yes.

My only subamendment would be to add Deputy Commissioner Brian Brennan to the hour that Commissioner Brenda Lucki is appearing.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jim Carr]

Okay.

Ms. Dancho, I see your hand up.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

More to what Mr. MacGregor has said, I do agree that this is a breaking development. It is shocking and disturbing. It is certainly regrettable that it is happening during a very sober memorial next week. What I would say is that those responsible for the political interference that is mentioned in the testimony, that is on those people. That is on any individual in the Liberal government who put that political interference.... As mentioned in the notes, that is legal testimony in the Mass Casualty Commission. It is deeply regrettable that they have done that, at least as alleged in this testimony.

That is why we are here meeting today, so I would agree with Mr. MacGregor. I would also agree with Mr. MacGregor that we add Deputy Commissioner Brian Brennan. Certainly he should be part of that. I agree on the timing and his addition there.

I would say, however, that we are concerned about Ms. Damoff's amendment to remove, in part (b), “(v), any other department officials involved in the 2020 Nova Scotia mass murder investigation and communications”. We have no representative yet from the PMO on this. That is supposed to be encapsulated in this. It is specifically mentioned in two separate legal testimonies in the MCC that the Prime Minister or the Prime Minister's Office directed or pressured Commissioner Lucki, but there's no specific name mentioned. In order to do a fulsome investigation, we require a representative from the PMO who was involved in this, who was in those discussions with the minister and Commissioner Lucki, so that they can come forward and answer questions.

Without having anyone representing the PMO or the other relevant top officials involved in this, we cannot verify or ask questions concerning the testimony that was just released. It is imperative that we have, at minimum, someone from the Prime Minister's Office who was involved at that time to come and testify at committee.

Again, the Liberal government would know who those individuals are, obviously. We would be firm on at least one representative from the PMO in order to ensure that this is a fulsome investigation.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jim Carr]

Do other members want to add commentary on the subamendment?

Mr. Lloyd, go ahead.

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

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jim Carr]

We're keeping an eye on the clock. I don't know how much time we have.

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

Yes. I'll try to be brief, Mr. Chair.

I agree with Mr. MacGregor's subamendment to add Brian Brennan, but I can't support Ms. Damoff's amendment as it is. A one-hour meeting with five RCMP officials; a one-hour meeting with the commissioner of the RCMP and, if it's amended, the deputy commissioner; and a one-hour meeting with the Minister of Public Safety and the deputy minister will not be near enough. I mean, if all five of these witnesses want to give five-minute opening remarks, that will eat up about half the meeting. Then we'll have only 30 minutes for actual substantive questions.

I would not support the amendment as is, but moving forward, let's have two two-hour meetings. One would be with the RCMP officials who were involved on the call. The other two-hour meeting would be with the commissioner and officials and the minister and officials.

I'm sensitive to what's happening next week. I think we can be flexible on that. I would certainly want to be flexible on that, but I think this one hour, one hour and one hour is way too short a time. It's not giving near enough attention to a very serious issue.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jim Carr]

Are there any other comments?

Mr. McKinnon, go ahead.