Public Safety Committee on Oct. 24th, 2022

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you.

Is there any further discussion on this subamendment by Madam Michaud?

Seeing none, let's have a vote.

(Subamendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

We will now return to Mr. MacGregor's amendment as modified by Madam Michaud.

Is there any further discussion on Mr. MacGregor's amendment as modified by Madam Michaud?

Seeing none, let's have a vote on that.

[Glen Motz, Conservative, Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB]

Can you clarify what we're voting on? What is the wording for it, please?

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

This is a test, right?

Mr. MacGregor moved that we modify the main motion to be “October 27 or as soon possible thereafter”. Madam Michaud added the text “subject that it occur on or before the 10th of November”.

Is that correct?

That is the amendment we are now voting on.

Is there any further discussion?

Mr. Van Bynen, please go ahead.

[Tony Van Bynen, Liberal, Newmarket—Aurora, ON]

On a point of order, Mr. Chair, I wonder if we might have the vote called out for members. It's difficult for me to see how the votes are going, largely because the screen displays only the speaker.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Fair enough.

If we're ready to vote, I'll ask the clerk to poll the vote, please.

(Amendment as amended agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

We will now go back to the main motion as amended by Mr. MacGregor and further amended by Madam Michaud.

Is there any further discussion on the main motion?

Ms. Damoff, please.

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

Chair, I think every single member in the House of Commons—every single Canadian—was devastated by what happened in Nova Scotia and in the way it was done, and to imply that we weren't I actually find quite offensive. I think every single Canadian was absolutely shocked and heartbroken. The reason the inquiry was called was to get to the bottom of why things happened the way they did.

During that time we had Commissioner Lucki here. We had Minister Blair here. There's a partial recording of a phone conversation they had. It's not all there. One line has been quoted extensively, but there are a number of other quotes. Even the reference that Mr. MacGregor made about legislation coming wasn't secret. That was in our platform. That was discussed regularly. There was nothing confidential about the fact that legislation was coming forward.

Both Commissioner Lucki and Minister Blair have been very clear. Most recently Minister Blair said in the House that he did not direct the commissioner. To start implying that by not supporting this motion we're not supporting the people of Nova Scotia and the families and friends and loved ones of those who died.... That is just simply not true. We have heard from those during the inquiries. It's unfortunate to hear comments such as the media won't be here on the break week. Either we want to get to answers or we want to have a meeting so that the media is here. That also is disappointing.

I'm not going to support the motion. I think we've heard enough. I don't think anything has changed from when we had the commissioner and the minister here previously. I went through the transcript. Commissioner Lucki is the commissioner of the RCMP and she has every right to expect that the people who work for her should be respectful. Time and time again through this she was upset with timelines. She was upset with the way the media was being handled in many ways. She couldn't get a chronology for what had happened. She couldn't get a map for days. She had offered assistance to Nova Scotia and it didn't come forward. I don't think there's anything new from this transcript, so I won't be supporting bringing them back.

I do appreciate, however, the addition of an extra meeting, because Bill C-21 has to be a priority and it has to remain a priority for our committee.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you.

We have Ms. Dancho followed by Mr. Ellis followed by Mr. Noormohamed.

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

Mr. Chair, Conservative members and our colleague represent the area where 22 people including a pregnant woman were killed. It's obvious why our emotions are very high about this.

The idea that the minister of public safety at the time saw the death of 22 people, including a pregnant woman, as an opportunity to get his legislation passed is disgusting. The fact that he came here and misled the committee on the record.... What he said directly contradicts what Commissioner Lucki said during the summer, let alone that now we have an audio recording of the actual meeting.

He fully denied knowing that the commissioner was going to go against her own advice to jeopardize an investigation and try to get information released. He said he didn't know anything about that, on the record, in committee. He also denied asking her to do that, and yet in the audio recording, she said that his office requested that she do that, and then she confirmed to the minister that she would.

To me, that is very clear, and there's no way you can see that otherwise. Either she's lying or he's lying, or perhaps they're both lying. That is why we've asked them both to resign. You can't get more cut and dried than how contradictory that is.

This was during a time that funerals hadn't even occurred, and here we may have minister who was looking at that as an opportunity....

The commissioner tied this to Liberal policy. That was why she was going against her own advice to push for information to be released, which she just days before said in writing to the minister, the minister's chief of staff, a national security adviser: Do not release this beyond the minister and the Prime Minister because it could jeopardize the investigation. She said that in writing.

Only days later, she was reprimanding her deputies for not sharing that information because she had committed to the minister that she would, who denied that he ever asked her to do that. It is very clear that there was ruthless political posturing being done during this time, going against expert advice and looking to knowingly jeopardize an investigation for political gain.

That is why our emotions are running very high. It's deeply upsetting, and the minister must be held accountable, as should the commissioner.

The public has every right to be fully aware of that. It isn't right if there is any move to downplay this or push it off for months, or push it during a week when people aren't paying attention or can zoom in from their home.

It is very important that we host this. I would call on the minister: If he truly means what his statement to the media said, then he should have no problem coming to committee this week, and he should bring the commissioner with him.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you.

Next is Mr. Ellis, followed by Mr. Noormohamed.

Mr. Ellis, go ahead.

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

Mr. Chair, I'll start by apologizing to the translators.

As Ms. Dancho correctly points out, this is an exceedingly emotional time. Again, I apologize for speaking loudly, not with the emotion, but for the loudness—absolutely.

That being said, I find it absolutely appalling that we're going to sit here in this committee today and talk about the he-said-she-said when we could actually solve this issue.

We can talk about whether Ms. Damoff thinks somebody said this, or Ms. Dancho said that somebody said this, or I think somebody said this, or heaven forbid, Mr. Chair, you think somebody said this.

We can have them here. There's a simple solution. They can come in front of this committee and they can explain themselves. It's as simple as that.

I call on my colleagues across the aisle—I understand that some of them have experience in the police force—to understand the importance of not hearing what they wrote in a public statement or what they said to the media, or even reading the transcripts. Let's have them here. I was a family doctor for 26 years. Do we have people write in their concerns to me? No. What do we do? We sit down in front of people. We actually sit with them and we talk to them.

My good colleague here was a police officer for many years. What do they do? They interview people. They don't have them write their statements and think “I wonder what he meant there.”

My good colleague across the aisle is another former police officer. It's the same thing. They actually have people sit in front of them. They don't get to hide. You don't get to say whatever you want to the media and go on and on and on. When new evidence comes, you reinterview people. It's as simple as that.

For my colleagues across the aisle to scoff at the idea that we don't have the time in Parliament to help atone for the misery that 22 lives were taken and an unborn baby—that we don't have the time to do that—is unconscionable. There's no other word for it. It's unconscionable. It behooves us as parliamentarians...that's why we're here.

I can't even believe that we have to have a debate about this, that my colleagues across the aisle suggest they are going to vote down having these two witnesses back again. Am I living in an altered universe that we don't have time for these families?

I'm beyond words, Mr. Chair. I have no other words, other than to implore my colleagues that they need to have due process here. Have these witnesses back, have them questioned once again for what they said, what the transcripts show and what others said. Have them have their say.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you, Mr. Ellis.

Mr. Noormohamed, go ahead, please.

[Taleeb Noormohamed, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

Mr. Chair, I've been sitting here listening quietly. I want to begin by saying to Mr. Ellis that I can't imagine what he and his fellow Nova Scotians have been going through over the course of the last little while.

All I want to say is that you have our sympathies and you have our support in making sure that those families get the justice they deserve.

I had the privilege, as a young bureaucrat, of working with Liberal and Conservative governments in dealing with victims of terrorism and victims of crime. One thing that was very important at that time was not to politicize tragedy.

I have to admit that I was almost there in terms of supporting this motion, because I do believe it's important to hear the truth.

I'm sorry Mr. Ellis has to leave, because I think this is an important point that I'd have liked for him to hear.

I think it lays bare the point I want to make, that when comments are made that the cameras aren't going to be on this, it tells you what the agenda is. That is of concern to me. If the agenda is the truth, and if the agenda is let's make sure we have the conversation, then it shouldn't matter whether it's a break week or not. It shouldn't matter whether or not the lights of the cameras are shining on it. If the media is concerned about this and it's a real story, the media will find its way to it.

Unfortunately, what we have here is people playing politics. If that is the case, I cannot see myself supporting this motion. Ultimately, I don't think it is in the interests of the country to waste time by bringing in the commissioner of the RCMP to rehash exactly what we already know. There is nothing new in that transcript. There is nothing new. For us to waste the time of Parliament in trying to create space for political opportunism is not okay. That's not what Canadians have asked us to do. What they have asked us to do is to get Bill C-21 done, to stop wasting time and to stop trying to throw roadblocks in terms of passing a piece of legislation that will prevent future tragedy.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you, Mr. Noormohamed.

Is there any further discussion on Madam Dancho's motion as amended?

Ms. Dancho, go ahead.

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

Mr. Chair, we may have a discussion amongst opposition parties, given the importance of this, that we'd like to move a subamendment to have this by next Thursday as the deadline. That would be the 3rd, not the 10th.

If we have agreement on that, I will move it.

I'm moving a subamendment that the latest date would be the 3rd. It's now the 10th, and this would change it to the 3rd.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

We already voted on that subamendment and we defeated it.

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

No. It was amended.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Mr. MacGregor made an amendment. Mr. Motz moved for the 3rd—

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

Okay. Then we'll say by the 4th, Mr. Chair. That will be my subamendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

It's a distinction without a difference, really.

Mr. MacGregor, please.

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

I understand your position, Chair. You have to look after procedure, but I'm sure if you test the room, you're going to see a majority of members in favour of what's being proposed.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Well, let's do this. We have dealt with this issue. We can deal with it again if we have unanimous consent to do so.

Do we have unanimous consent to consider a subamendment that's already been dealt with?

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

Can it be a new amendment?

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

It is a new amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

I'm sorry...?

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

The 4th is a new amendment.