Public Safety Committee on Oct. 24th, 2022

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

I was going to say I have no intention whatsoever of delaying Bill C-21. I think we're a good enough working group here to get both done in the next two weeks.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Yes, go ahead.

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

It's right in the motion.

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

As my colleague just said, it's right in the motion. If we have to find extra time for Bill C-21 and we have to balance that, we will.

It's not my intention at all, Mr. Noormohamed.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Are we all now clear on Mr. Shipley's subamendment, which is to change it to: “after the 27th but on or before the 4th of November”? Correct? Instead of the 10th...? I think we should probably call the roll on this vote as well.

[An hon. member]

A recorded vote?

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Yes.

(Subamendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

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

Chair...?

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Go ahead, Pam.

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

I'm sorry. I have another amendment, Chair, and at the end of “the previously scheduled witnesses for C-21 be added to an additional meeting for the C-21 study”, it adds, comma, “including during the week of November 7th if necessary”.

It's so that if we need to meet during the break week to add the meeting for Bill C-21, we're going to commit to do it. It's “an additional meeting for the C-21 study, including during the week of November 7th if necessary”. If you can't get an extra meeting, Chair, we're going to have to come in during that constituency week.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Are we clear on that amendment?

I'm not sure where we are with amendments and subamendments anymore. I think we're at an amendment now.

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

I wanted to clarify this. I believe that we need to meet in person, and for me to get back and forth.... As long as we have it that week and it's not on the 10th, because I can't get back to deal with my veterans' issues in my riding unless I leave sometime early on the 10th.... Monday to Wednesday is fine. On Thursday, I can't make it back in time.

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

Well, we can all get subs, Glen.

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

We leave that to the clerk. I'm only saying that the clerk—

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

That's why you can get subs.

It's up to the chair to work with the clerk, right?

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

Yes, that's all I'm saying. It's more for the clerk's attention.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Whenever the meetings are, all members have the option of attending in person or remotely, according to the House motion of whenever. If it's during a break week, I will probably be online. It's a lot easier if we're all online than if some of us are online, but anyway....

Are we all clear with Ms. Damoff's amendment? The motion as it stands is as Ms. Dancho presented it, modified by Mr. MacGregor, modified by Ms. Michaud and modified by Mr. Shipley, and now it is being modified by Ms. Damoff to add...?

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

Yes, “including during the week of November 4th if necessary”.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

All right. Let's call the roll on that.

Go ahead, Tony.

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

On another point of order, Mr. Chair, I'm not sure how the microphones are working there, but I'm not hearing the votes as they're being called out.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

We'll ask people to shout them out.

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

On a point of order, Chair, I'm sorry: It's November 7th. I think I said November 4th. It's “including the week of November 7th if necessary”.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Okay.

Please call the roll.

(Amendment agreed to: yeas 11; nays 0 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

Now, we're back to the main motion as amended. Is there any further discussion?

We're all clear on what we're voting on now.

(Motion as amended agreed to: yeas 6; nays 5 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

Mr. MacGregor.

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

Mr. Chair, I want to take this opportunity to move another motion, for which notice was given on Friday. The clerk is about to distribute it. This also has to deal with the subject of conflicting testimony that was given at this committee in March of this year versus what was given at the commission.

The motion is as follows:

That the Chair, on behalf of the Committee, contact the Ontario Provincial Police demanding an immediate response regarding their testimony before the Committee on March 24, 2022, where they identified possible security threats in relation to the Freedom Convoy, which runs in apparent contradiction to their testimony before the Public Order Emergency Commission on October 19, 2022.

I won't take much time, Mr. Chair.

On March 24, during my final two and a half minutes, I asked Ottawa Interim Chief of Police Bell, “at the time...did you feel that it was a national security threat? When you received those assessments, did your police officers feel that was a viable national security threat?”

Chief Bell referenced intelligence experts, and then he said he was going to defer the question to OPP Commissioner Thomas Carrique. OPP Commissioner Thomas Carrique answered, “Thank you, Chief Bell. Through you, Mr. Chair, we did identify it as a threat to national security, through the provincial operations intelligence bureau, on or about February 7.” He repeated that same answer in a reply to Mr. Sameer Zuberi, who was a member of our committee at that time, and he did, again, reiterate that they identified it collectively as a risk to national security.

Mr. Chair, if you contrast that with one of the commissioner's deputies who, on October 19, asserted that it was not a direct threat to national security.... I'm quite troubled that the very same police force is giving one answer to the public order commission but a completely different answer earlier in the year to a committee of the House of Commons.

I think, Mr. Chair, that this committee has to empower you to seek clarification on why those two wildly different testimonies were given.

I will end there, and I hope I can gain support from my colleagues for this motion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you, Mr. MacGregor.

It seems to be in order and is so moved.

Is there any discussion on this motion?

Seeing no discussion, we will have a vote on it.

Do we need a roll call vote?