Public Safety Committee on Sept. 27th, 2023

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

It's a different amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

I think there are significant differences. Mr. Lloyd is moving to replace one meeting with two meetings, and he is adding that representatives from victims' families be invited to participate.

Is there any discussion?

[Jennifer O'Connell, Liberal, Pickering—Uxbridge, ON]

Mr. Chair, I think that, once again, it's incredibly disappointing that this is proving that the Conservatives are using this as a partisan filibuster, a horrific topic as a partisan filibuster, because it is very clear to anybody watching that they are making amendments and decisions on the back of a napkin.

If they were serious about victims' rights, they would have come prepared with something that isn't piecemeal: “I meant to add this”, “I meant to say this”, “Now I'm saying this, but no, wait, did I not say that? How do I word this?” Come on, Mr. Chair. We are trying to do real work on this committee about protecting victims, and I think the members opposite should quit while they are very clearly not ahead and they are embarrassing themselves. When it comes to an issue as serious and sensitive as this, we shouldn't conduct ourselves in this manner.

I think we've come to a reasonable compromise about having a very real conversation about a very real and serious topic, and if they want to continue in this manner, Canadians will be judging. As I said, women will see that an issue like this is being used in such a flippant way.

I will not be supporting this subamendment attempt, and I hope we can get to the amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Mr. Shipley, go ahead.

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

Thank you, Chair.

I take a little exception to saying we've come here to make decisions on the back of a napkin. We came here with a motion in both official languages, ready to go. Everything that's been done after our motion has been flippant, on the fly and on the back of a napkin, so it's actually completely backwards. We submitted ours properly through the clerk in advance, in both official languages. There's been nothing done willy-nilly here. It's been done properly from the beginning.

Ms. O'Connell mentioned a couple of times that this is a serious and sensitive issue. Yes, it's very serious and very sensitive. It's so serious that we need more than one meeting on it. If it's so serious, let's get serious. Let's get into this and figure things out. One meeting isn't serious. I don't know any issue that we've solved in one meeting. We need more time than that.

We heard earlier some very sensitive and very emotional discussions. Let's not rush through this. Let's do it properly. Let's all come to a consensus that we need more than one meeting. I don't know how anybody can think that we can do a serious and sensitive hearing in one meeting. That's not serious to me. Let's get serious. Let's do three meetings. Let's get to the bottom of this. Let's move forward.

Let the representatives of the victims be heard. We can't force them to come. The ones who are going to come are the ones who want to come and be heard. I heard Mr. Bittle say earlier that it was shameful that we were asking them to be heard. They don't have to come, but the ones who want to be heard will show up. Let's let them be heard. Let them speak about what they've been through and what happened to them back on June 1, when the heinous Mr. Bernardo was moved from maximum security to medium. I'm sure it caused them great stress and hardship. Let's get serious. Let's hear about it.

I can't support one meeting. One meeting is not serious. If we're going to talk about being serious, let's get serious. We wanted five. We'll go down to three. Let's do three meetings.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Having three meetings is not on the table. It's two.

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

I'm sorry. It's two, plus the minister.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

We're running out of time here. Can we vote on Mr. Lloyd's subamendment?

(Subamendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Are we ready to vote on Ms. O'Connell's amendment?

[Jennifer O'Connell, Liberal, Pickering—Uxbridge, ON]

I asked for a recorded vote.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Mr. Clerk, would you conduct a recorded vote, please?

(Amendment agreed to: yeas 7; nays 4 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

We still have the main motion. We have one more vote to do.

It's essentially the same. Do we need more discussion?

Mr. Lloyd, go ahead.

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

Thank you.

I'm disappointed that we've had to get to this point. I believe the Conservatives have been completely reasonable. We were initially asking for five meetings, which we felt would be appropriate to meet the requirements for coming up with serious recommendations that could help prevent situations like this from happening again.

I think we showed a willingness when the government came forward with an amendment to suggest that we have one meeting. We could not in good conscience support one meeting with just Correctional Service Canada officials. We feel that this is a multi-dimensional situation involving victims' rights, involving practices of our civil service and involving the practices that go on inside ministers' offices.

By moving this amendment, the government has basically prevented us from hearing the very important perspectives of victims—how they feel about these practices being carried out by Correctional Service Canada and how they feel about what happened with the minister's office. We couldn't in good conscience vote for having only one meeting on this matter. We showed our willingness to compromise. We were pushing for two meetings on this matter, plus an additional meeting with the minister, which would have been a meeting that we were already planning with the minister, and seeking to include any testimony that we might ask for—taking away from our time as the opposition to ask him about many important issues related to public safety. We were going to sacrifice our time to ask those very important questions so that we could ask him specifically about these matters.

I think our side has shown Canadians that we are willing to work with all parties in order to get a result that is acceptable to Canadians. I think moving forward with just one meeting is insufficient. It's completely insufficient to give Canadians and victims' families the assurance that this government is doing everything it can to ensure that this situation doesn't happen again.

We were asking for two meetings, Mr. Chair, including a meeting where we would hear from representatives of victims to talk about their perspective. This committee voted to not hear from victims. I think that's wrong. I think it's unfortunate. That's why we couldn't in good conscience vote for this.

I think I've been clear that the Conservatives have shown a willingness to be very flexible on our initial motion, but we will not budge when it comes to supporting the rights of inclusion for victims and their families so that their perspectives can be heard. This is not just about hearing from civil servants and bureaucrats from their perspective, although that will be an important perspective to hear in order to make recommendations. This is about hearing from Canadians about how they felt these decisions impacted them. I think it's completely wrong that this committee voted not to include those perspectives in that.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you, Mr. Lloyd.

Mr. Julian, go ahead.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

I wish that we'd move to the vote on the main motion, because as I mentioned, and we've had discussions among all four parties, I would like to move that we bring the minister here. I think it's a bit of a contradiction that we have the Conservatives filibustering the motion that I want to bring forward to bring the minister here. It doesn't make a lot of sense.

If we're concerned about the issue, why don't we invite the minister? The Conservatives are filibustering, so I'm not able to do that. Quite frankly, I'm a bit confused by their strategy. It seems to me that having a meeting with the minister makes a lot of sense, and yet Conservatives seem to be blocking the opportunity to do that.

I understand that we're very close now to adjournment time. I'm very confused about their strategy. I'm a little perplexed, when we have discussions among all four parties, that this doesn't carry through to actually getting the committee business done.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you, Mr. Julian.

I have Mr. Motz on the list. However, I would encourage us to get to a vote on the main motion. Then we can entertain other motions, if we wish.

Mr. Motz, did you wish to speak?

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

Yes, briefly.

I just want to bring this back to why this motion was brought forward in the first place. Canadians were shocked and outraged at the transfer. That was it. The families and the communities that were impacted by these tragedies were outraged. Across the country, people were outraged.

Here is an example. We realized that there is a deficiency in the legislation. The intent of having a study is to show that the deficiency exists and that Bill C‑83 needs to be amended. To put pressure on government to do so was the intent behind this, to actually have a positive impact on victims, not only now but moving forward, so that they feel heard.

While I agree that there have been discussions among the parties here, I don't feel that brushing this off by having one meeting actually serves the purpose of what we're trying to accomplish.

I can't support one meeting. I'm sorry.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you.

Is there further discussion on the main motion?

Mr. Shipley, go ahead.

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

I just want to add to what my colleagues are saying. I understand that my friend from the NDP wants to get his motion on the floor, but let's do things right. Let's make sure that we have the right number of meetings in place. Let's not rush it through. We want to make sure that nothing is rushed with this.

When you're talking about bringing the minister.... I know it was a different minister, but we have been asking for the minister to come to this committee. I wish the clerk could tell us how long it's been since the last minister came. We have been asking for that repeatedly, many times, and we couldn't get a response. We're all for the minister coming. It's just that it didn't happen. We're not holding up your motion. We'd like to get him here as much as you do, if not more. That's not an issue.

We just want to make sure that things are done properly here and that we have the right number of meetings. This is a very delicate topic, a very sensitive topic and a very in-depth topic. Let's give it the right time it deserves and let's make sure we do this with a fulsome review. One meeting, to me, is just not enough. We've seen what we can do in a meeting here. Sometimes we don't get a lot resolved in a meeting—case in point.

I don't know what our timing is tonight. We talked just before this, Chair, and we said that we would have a hard stop at 6:30. Are we still—

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

We suspended for 23 minutes, so we can actually extend it that far.

However, I would encourage us to have this vote, and if there's any time left, we can maybe hear from Mr. Julian and hear his motion.

I have Mr. Melillo.

[Eric Melillo, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Just briefly, obviously I've been quiet this meeting. It's my first intervention as a member of this committee, and it's good to be here.

Folks around the table have been part of this work a lot longer, obviously, but in coming into this with fresh eyes as a new member of the committee, I think that from my perspective I don't want to repeat what was being said but just reiterate how important it is to have more of a discussion about such an important and sensitive topic. When we talk about public safety, I think this is an issue that obviously has to be right at the forefront of it.

I don't know if it will be a lost cause or not, but I wanted to continue to implore my colleagues around the table to reconsider having only one meeting on this topic, just given the gravity of it and given the importance. Again, as a new member, I don't have all the experience that some of the other folks around here have, but I definitely think this is something that we have to reconsider. I urge everyone to do so.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you, Mr. Melillo.

Is there anything further?

I have Mr. Motz.

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

I guess there's a bigger picture here that we need to look at.

There's a view on the other side that this is a filibuster process. I think the government has some legislation that they are pretty anxious to get through this committee. We came here with hat in hand, with great intentions of saying, “You know what, let's have a few meetings.” We started with five. We can settle on two plus the minister when he comes, as per Mr. Julian's anticipated motion. I think that's reasonable. If we don't, I will tell you that I think there is a very strong probability that the government getting its legislation through in a timely way may not happen, and that's unfortunate.

There's some important legislation that needs to get through. We've been working on this for a while, and there are other ones coming up that are important, but this is something that we feel.... We've been asked by Canadians to take a stand on this. We will, and we are. It's absolutely critical that the government representatives here at this committee understand that we're willing to work with them to pass government legislation, but to do so, we also require some concessions on things that have come to our attention from the Canadian people on matters that are important to them.

Hearing from victims and victims' groups is one of those issues, as well as the impact this has on the justice system and on what Canadians think of the justice system. We have an opportunity to meet and have Canadians be heard. I guess the ball is in the government's court. If they want legislation passed in a timely way, then let's—

[Jennifer O'Connell, Liberal, Pickering—Uxbridge, ON]

You're using victims to hold up government legislation.

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

No. You are.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Let's not have any crosstalk, please. Let's get to this vote.