Public Safety Committee on Aug. 16th, 2022

[Stephen Ellis, Conservative, Cumberland—Colchester, NS]

Thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate the recognition.

That being said, I can't underscore enough the seriousness of these allegations and the seriousness they create in my riding of Cumberland—Colchester. People do not have any faith at the current time in the Mass Casualty Commission. To continue to use the testimony we have already heard, with written notes from a very reputable member of the RCMP...and to question his integrity is an absolute travesty. We also had corroboration today from Ms. Scanlan with respect to what she heard in that meeting, also with notes, which obviously we will have access to.

That being said, I think it behooves us all as parliamentarians, in the worst mass shooting in Canada's history, to take this very seriously and, obviously, to understand, in the vernacular, that somebody is not telling the truth. That is very disappointing to me and I think it's very disappointing to Canadians at large.

For that reason, I am certainly not supportive of this amendment. Thank you.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Raquel Dancho]

Go ahead, MP Perkins.

[Rick Perkins, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

The amendment to my motion seems to delay what we're doing here today. The reality is that we know we are missing key links in the chain of potential political interference in the largest mass shooting in our country's history. This would delay until after September 19—for those who are watching, September 19 is when the House resumes—the discussion we can have today. We've given adequate time for these witnesses, who have already been mentioned twice in motions before this committee, to find the time to come here in September. If we wait until September to discuss this, given committee business on other studies, it's going to be further delayed.

There is a bit of urgency. The Mass Casualty Commission does have a deadline this fall and it has reporting deadlines. We need to continue our study as soon as we can and get these folks here, particularly given the confusing testimony and what we've seen from the chief of staff's clear requests on April 22 and April 23, all around the cabinet meeting that was held that day on this issue, asking for details that the civilian level was not entitled to.

The only people who can answer for that are the people on this list, and they have not been allowed or able to appear. We need to hear them, or the committee's study will be questionable in any conclusions it comes to.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Raquel Dancho]

Thank you, MP Perkins.

Go ahead, MP Noormohamed.

[Taleeb Noormohamed, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

I have to confess, in listening to all of this.... I have a reflection. First of all, we've now heard the commissioner of the RCMP say she wasn't pressured. We've heard the minister say he never pressured anybody. We've heard that no political office pressured anybody. We've also heard two reputable members of the RCMP, in particular Chief Superintendent Campbell, say they never heard the minister or political offices, such as the Prime Minister's Office, pressure or direct the commissioner to do anything.

With that backdrop, and given the fact that we now seemingly have this desire to replace the work of the Mass Casualty Commission, which we should not be doing, I move that we adjourn debate.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Raquel Dancho]

Thank you, MP Noormohamed. I will say that it's disappointing not to allow the NDP to speak.

We'll call the vote.

(Motion agreed to: yeas 5; nays 4)

The debate is adjourned.

MP Lloyd, go ahead.

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

Am I to understand—maybe the clerk can answer—that the adjournment of the debate is on the amendment by Ms. Damoff, or does this dispose of the debate on the amendment and the motion together?

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Raquel Dancho]

The clerk's opinion or professional advice is that it deters debate on the motion in its entirety, with the amendment.

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

Understood.

Madam Chair, I'd like to move a motion.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Raquel Dancho]

MP Lloyd, go ahead.

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

The motion is—and I think that maybe there's a bit of a compromise here—that, pursuant to the meeting, the committee agree to hold a meeting to discuss future steps with this study, and that this meeting be held between September 19 and September 30, 2022.

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

I have a point of order.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Raquel Dancho]

Thank you, MP Lloyd.

MP McKinnon, go ahead on a point of order.

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

I believe that is repetitive business. We've already dealt with this issue substantially with the motion that has now been adjourned, so I think Mr. Lloyd's motion is out of order.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Raquel Dancho]

I'm just going to take a moment to consult with the clerk.

MP Lloyd, just a point of clarification, you've proposed new dates, September 19 to September 30, that the committee meet. Can you please just repeat that? The clerk wants to see if it is substantively different from the other motion.

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

I'm proposing that the committee meet to discuss committee business between the dates of September 19 and September 30 to deal with the question of how to move forward with this study.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Raquel Dancho]

I think that is substantial, and it is different from the original motion, Mr. McKinnon, so your point of order does not stand.

Mr. MacGregor, go ahead.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I was just going to object to the point of order. I did think it was substantively different, and I congratulate Mr. Lloyd. I think a good compromise has been reached, which actually echoes a subamendment I was going to move.

I think this is something we can all agree to, and I'll leave it at that, with the hope that we can get to a vote.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Raquel Dancho]

Thank you, MP MacGregor.

MP Damoff, go ahead.

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

Thanks.

Just before I speak, Chair, I'd like to commend you on what you've been able to do today. I know you were put in a position of taking on the chair at the last minute, so I'd just like to thank you for valiantly leading us in this meeting.

To my colleague, Mr. Lloyd, that's essentially what I was trying to get to with my change to the original motion. We would be supportive of a meeting being held between September 19 and September 30, so we'd support your current amendment on the floor.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Raquel Dancho]

It's a motion, but I believe your point stands.

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

It's a motion on the floor, yes. Sorry about that.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Raquel Dancho]

I see a few hands up, but I think they're just holdovers from when the individuals spoke.

Are there any other comments?

There seems to be agreement. We don't need to vote if there's general agreement. Are there nods that we can have this motion pass? I'm seeing nods from all parties, so the motion is passed.

Madame Normandin, go ahead, please, and then Mr. Schiefke.

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

I would like to know if it is possible to get the motion in writing, even though we just passed it. That way, we could know exactly what it says. I understand its essence, but I would like to have the exact wording.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Raquel Dancho]

Absolutely. The clerk will provide that in short order, within the next day, I would think.

MP Schiefke, go ahead.