Public Safety Committee on Oct. 24th, 2022

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

I call this meeting to order.

Welcome, everyone, on this fine Monday afternoon to meeting number 40 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security.

I will start by acknowledging that we are meeting on the traditional unceded territory of the Algonquin people.

Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format, pursuant to the House order of November 25, 2021. Members are attending in person in the room and remotely using the Zoom application. The meeting is public.

Pursuant to Standing Order 106(4), the committee is commencing consideration of the request by five members of the committee to undertake a study of developments regarding the allegations of political interference in the Nova Scotia mass murder investigation.

I will now open the floor for debate.

Ms. Dancho.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm going to formally move the motion, as follows:

That pursuant to Standing Order 108(2) the committee meet for one meeting, on Thursday October 27th, in relation to the public release of the recording of RCMP Commissioner Lucki’s call to the Nova Scotia RCMP and the allegations of political interference in the 2020 Nova Scotia Mass Murder Investigation, and that RCMP Commissioner Lucki appear in the first hour, that Minister Blair be invited to appear in the second hour, and that the previously scheduled witnesses for C-21 be added to an additional meeting for the C-21 study.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you. The motion is in order.

The motion is on the floor. Is there any debate?

Ms. Damoff.

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

Mr. Chair, I've read over the transcripts. I see absolutely nothing in here that changes what we already heard in two hours of testimony with Minister Blair and Commissioner Lucki.

I want to thank you, Chair, for finding the time for us to meet today so that we didn't have to lose a meeting on our study of Bill C-21. In theory, this motion that was brought forward could have had us lose two meetings on Bill C-21, which, quite frankly, on this side of the House, is a priority for us. Getting Bill C-21 passed and hearing from witnesses who are making the time to come and talk to us about Bill C-21 are a priority, so thank you for doing this, Chair.

I notice that the motion brought forward stipulates that an additional meeting be added, but given House resources, there's never any guarantee of additional meetings. I would think that a written explanation from the commissioner would suffice, but if not, I would like to amend the motion, Mr. Chair. I'll officially do this.

Where it says that “the committee meet for one meeting, on Thursday October 27th, I move that we amend it to say that “the committee meet following consideration of Bill C-21”.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

The amendment is in order. Is there debate on the amendment?

We had Mr. Ellis after Ms. Damoff.

Mr. Ellis, go ahead.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Certainly, this is shocking. It's shocking in the sense that you have to really repress the disbelief and dismay with which I hear members opposite speaking about this. This is a point where we understand very clearly that there was interference from a political level in an active police investigation in my riding in which 23 people died. I can't underscore that enough.

If this committee refuses to find time to revisit this issue, when it's related to political interference and also to an RCMP commissioner, of course, at the very highest of the high levels of the RCMP, how can anybody have faith in the process of government in Canada? This is absolutely ludicrous and, as I said, shocking. From the perspective of the people I represent, it's quite a slap in the face, I would suggest.

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

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

Are we debating the amendment, or are we debating the main motion? I just want clarification.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

We are debating the amendment, and I hope Mr. Ellis will get to that point.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Once again, I find it shocking that I get interrupted. We need to underscore the importance of the ridiculous nature of the amendment that's proposed here. People died, and for a government to use this for political gain is absolutely shocking. This committee does not want to undertake any type of action to remediate the situation, which has clearly changed, when now we know very clearly that Mr. Campbell's notes pointed out what Commissioner Lucki said and what Minister Blair said.

Now we have a transcript of a meeting, which also corroborates that, and we have other testimony from the Mass Casualty Commission, which corroborates all three of these things going together, to have an understanding of exactly what happened.

We have an unbelievably clear picture here. For this committee not to want to undertake having those members back again is shocking. It's a slap in the face. It's a disservice, and it's an apolitical move towards the people in my riding. Quite frankly, it's an affront to democracy.

I can't understand how anybody could sit here and not want to understand very clearly, when new evidence has come forward, exactly what is happening here.

Once again, I can't understand this at all. This type of amendment to a very simple motion to have the major players return to a committee that has tried to understand this unbelievable political interference for many meetings now certainly, in my mind, is not enough to assuage the concerns of people in the riding of Cumberland—Colchester.

When you look at that, you know what? People from Nova Scotia don't want excuses anymore. They want answers, and they're not getting answers from the Mass Casualty Commission. Another affront to their goodwill and solitude is this committee, which, again, does not want to provide them with any answers about what happened at a political level.

I just can't understand how anybody on the opposite side could want to vote against this.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you, Mr. Ellis.

We will go to Ms. Dancho, then Mr. Perkins and then Madam Michaud.

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

No, Mr. Chair, I'm fine, thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Okay.

Mr. Perkins, go ahead, please.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

As a fellow Nova Scotian, I echo Mr. Ellis's comments.

I would point to the amendment to the main motion, which is delaying the examination of this new evidence that was released only last Friday but then given to the Mass Casualty Commission after the Mass Casualty Commission has finished its public hearing process, so I think it's incumbent upon this committee to delve into the details of the clear contradictions and lies in what has been said in committee, what has been said in the House, and what has been said by witnesses at the Mass Casualty Commission.

The Mass Casualty Commission is on an urgent agenda to finish their report, but they don't have the ability to re-examine these witnesses at this time because of the mandate and the way the mandate was structured by the federal government, so I would encourage all members to vote against the amendment and vote for the main motion so that we can get to this urgent study. What could be more urgent?

I understand that Bill C-21 is urgent to a number of people, but I think the mass murder of 22 Nova Scotians is of utmost importance for this committee and of paramount importance to be studied. The study of Bill C-21 can wait another meeting or two while we delve into these clear contradictions by the former minister and the commissioner.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you.

It's Madam Michaud and then Mr. MacGregor.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

It's an extremely important meeting that we need to have. I agree with my colleagues from the Conservative Party.

However, like my colleagues in the Liberal Party, I'm concerned that consideration of Bill C‑21 will be delayed.

Could you answer my question, Mr. Chair or Mr. Clerk: Is it possible to have a meeting outside of our regular committee hours to hold this meeting, much like we're doing today? The committee doesn't usually meet on Mondays.

Would it be possible to hold this meeting in a timely manner without using the meetings scheduled for Bill C‑21?

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

I'll answer that.

It is extraordinarily difficult to find extra time. We got this meeting today only because foreign affairs cancelled, and we heard through the grapevine that it was available. We have been trying for a number of weeks to get the coming two Thursdays extended by an hour. That has been declined. It's very difficult to get any extra time in the schedule.

I hope that answers your question.

You still have the floor if you're not finished.

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

I will add that, in this case, I find it quite difficult. I find it annoying that we have to put this off because I feel like it's going to take a long time to study Bill C‑21. We have a lot to look at together. I am sure we will have a lot of things to discuss when we get to clause-by-clause consideration.

This is fairly urgent, I agree. It's up in the air, we just got the transcripts of Ms. Lucki's meetings. It would be strange to come back to that in two or three months.

That said, it would be nice to have assurances from the Conservative Party members that only one meeting will be devoted to this subject and that they won't come back again with something new to try to delay consideration of Bill C‑21.

I know they are acting in good faith and they are not trying to delay Bill C‑21, but if they continue bringing urgent matters to us, we may have to delay consideration of this bill, which I see as a priority.

I'd be willing to have a meeting soon, but only one.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you.

Mr. MacGregor, go ahead.

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

Mr. Chair, with respect to Bill C-21, I also have an interest in getting on with it. By my count we still have five meetings of witnesses remaining for Bill C-21. We've agreed to a total of eight meetings and we've done three meetings. If we were to continue with the current schedule, that would take us to the week following Remembrance Day, the constituency week we have.

I think the Conservatives acted in good faith with their original motion by adding that last line. I understand that it's not always easy to find an additional meeting, but we did manage to find an additional meeting today. In the interest of not delaying Bill C-21, I would be open to trying to find some time during the constituency week if that would help, but I think we should keep it open.

The only thing that concerns me is whether by naming October 27 specifically—I know that the minister and the commissioner, by virtue of their positions, are pretty busy people—we are shoehorning ourselves if they're not available. I am interested in seeing them come as soon as possible, but we do have to work with two very busy people's schedules.

With respect to the amendment, I'm not sure I'm totally in favour of it yet. I think we can find a way to accommodate both the bill and the timeliness of this particular issue that's before us.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you.

Next is Ms. Damoff, followed by Ms. Dancho.

[An hon. member]

[Inaudible—Editor]

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Okay, we'll go with Ms. Dancho.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I appreciate the comments from all parties.

About the additional meeting, I appreciate the mention from my colleague from the NDP. We did in good faith want to make efforts with this motion not to delay Bill C-21. We recognize that certainly parts of the bill in particular are a key priority for other parties and for us. That's why we added that in.

My understanding is that the Liberal whip's office was looking to have additional meetings for Bill C-21 anyway, so I believe they are very familiar with the committee's schedule. I'm surprised that now it seems we're not able to find time. I'm very confident that we can find time to have an additional meeting to fit in Bill C-21 on schedule should we need to.

In terms of the timing for the minister and the commissioner, I will say that we don't normally ask for ministers to resign or for the Commissioner of the RCMP to resign, but it's very clear, based on the audio recording and what was said in committee, that someone is not telling the truth, and that would be either the head of the RCMP or the former minister of public safety.

That is very significant. I would be pretty shocked if the minister was not willing to make time in his schedule to come and defend himself. It's the same for the RCMP. In fact, I would be very shocked and surprised. I think they owe it to Canadians to come and explain themselves. We have conflicting testimony from those involved. Again, these are powerful people who appear to have very much misled the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security.

I would assume they would put everything aside to come and defend themselves as they have in their statements. They need to be held accountable by this committee on behalf of Canadians. I am very confident that they will make time in their schedules, as per the motion, unless there's a medical reason or they're out of the country. Even then, we have Zoom capabilities, and if they're out of the city they can still appear by Zoom. Barring some life-threatening situation, I would assume they would want to come and defend themselves and answer our questions, Mr. Chair.

It is our expectation, as the motion passes, that they will honour this motion and that they will come and explain themselves to this committee.

Last, I would say again that I am completely open to meeting during the break week. We are not looking to delay this bill. That is our intention, and I remain committed to that.

I very much appreciate working together with the opposition parties to hold this government accountable as is our duty to Canadians.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you.

For your information, it wasn't the Liberal whip who was looking for time; it was me. I was trying to find more time to move things forward.

Pardon me?

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

You got promoted.