Public Safety Committee on Oct. 16th, 2023

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

I call this meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting 75 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security. Pursuant to the order of reference of Friday, November 25, 2022, the committee continues consideration of Bill C-20, an act establishing the public complaints and review commission and amending certain acts and statutory instruments. Today the committee starts clause-by-clause consideration.

Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format, pursuant to the Standing Orders. Members are attending in person in the room and remotely using the Zoom application.

Although this room is equipped with a powerful audio system, feedback events can occur. These can be extremely harmful to interpreters and can cause serious injuries. The most common cause of sound feedback is an earpiece worn too close to a microphone. We, therefore, ask all participants to exercise a high degree of caution when handling the earpieces, especially when your microphones, or your neighbours' microphones, are turned on. I invite participants to ensure that they speak into the microphone into which their headset is plugged and to avoid manipulating the earbuds by placing them on the table away from the microphone when they are not in use.

I will remind you that all comments should be addressed through the chair.

I would like to thank all the officials for joining us once again. I appreciate your patience.

I would also like to thank Mr. Shipley for presiding over the previous meeting.

[Voices]

Hear, hear!

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

I understand that it was a trial by fire. He came out very well.

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

There was no applause from over there, but I tried.

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Before I introduce the officials, I understand that Ms. O'Connell wishes the floor.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I provided a notice of motion. I'd like to move it now. I move:

That the committee hold a meeting, immediately after the committee’s study of Bill C-20, on the rights of victims of crime and the security reclassification and transfer of offenders within Correctional Service Canada and that the committee invite the Commissioner of Correctional Service Canada, Anne Kelly; the Deputy Minister of Public Safety, Shawn Tupper; the Correctional Investigator; the Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime; Tim Danson; and officials from Justice and Public Safety Canada.

Mr. Chair, now that it's on the record, I would like to speak briefly to it.

There have been four meetings in which we've attempted to address the issue of dealing with the reclassification of prisoners. We've had many sidebar conversations. We've had many committee discussions with amendments. The motion we have introduced here today takes into account all of the concerns that have been raised, including the issues around the lawyer representing victims, yet the Conservatives continue to play games with heinous crimes against women.

Mr. Chair, it's incredibly disappointing to see.

I'm sure Conservatives saw, over the course of last week, correspondence similar to what we received, including from several women who are absolutely appalled that such a heinous crime is being used as a filibuster tool to avoid dealing with Bill C-20. Many have pointed out that the bill is something that many survivors of sexual harassment and victimization say is a welcome tool, which we need to be moving on with.

This is a motion in good faith to take into account all of the concerns from multiple parties and what they would like to see happen in this study, so that we can move forward with Bill C-20 and the work of this committee. If members opposite.... If Conservatives decide to filibuster using this issue, women will be the judge of their issues and who is actually fighting for real legislation that will have an impact versus using heinous crimes as a way to create clickbait. I saw some members out there, filming their videos already. Perhaps it's to hit their fundraising targets. I don't know. I guess we'll see. I think women in this country would be appalled to see that sort of behaviour.

As I've mentioned, the committee has received correspondence on this very matter about the performance of many at the previous meetings. We've received several pieces of correspondence—I know I have, and I'm sure others have—about how appalling it was that some members at the last meeting, when we were talking about such an important issue.... All male colleagues on the Conservative side decided to talk over the women speaking on this committee. They were more concerned about the score of the Blue Jays game. Women noticed these things.

If we are serious about having a conversation about how prisoner classification is handled in this country and if we're serious about victims' rights, we can move forward on this motion and move forward with having that meeting. It's up to the Conservatives now. If there are other members from other parties.... I don't pretend to speak for them. However, I believe this is a motion to address the issue of discussing prisoner transfers and reclassifications. It has, like I said, addressed all of the issues that have been raised to us.

If this really isn't a filibuster using heinous crimes against women, Conservatives can prove it by voting for this motion and moving forward with Bill C-20. If they choose not to do that.... Like I said, I think women in this country realize that crimes against them are nothing more than political tools for the Conservatives to block legislation. I think that's incredibly sad and also probably why Conservatives are polling so poorly among women. It's because they see through their use of heinous crimes as political tools.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you, Ms. O'Connell.

We go to Ms. Rempel Garner, followed by Mr. Bittle.

Go ahead.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Thank you, Chair. It's a pleasure to work with you both again. It's been a hot minute.

I am a woman, and I've been watching what's happened here. It shocked me a little, too, to be honest with you, so I'm glad to have an opportunity to speak to this today. I will go to the substance of my colleague's argument for her motion and then try to, perhaps, propose an alternative.

My colleague said the motion she put forward addressed all of the concerns of all colleagues. I don't think it does. Some of the issues that have been raised.... I spent yesterday looking through the committee testimony. It was romantic reading, to be sure.

My understanding is that the impasse we're at in this committee is that some colleagues feel there should be more meetings, particularly to give victims an opportunity to talk about the impact from their perspective. I also don't think that there has been an opportunity for correctional services officers—particularly the union—to give their feedback on whether or not the measures the government has put in place are adequate.

This is what I propose, and then I'd like to give my rationale with respect for what I'm proposing.

Chair, I will ensure that this is circulated in both official languages to you, particularly for my colleague in the Bloc.

I move to amend the motion such that all of the words after the word “That” be replaced with the following:

the committee hold a minimum of three meetings, immediately after the committee’s study of Bill C-20, on Paul Bernardo’s transfer from a maximum-security prison to a medium-security prison, the rights of victims of crime and the security reclassification and transfer of offenders within federal corrections, provided that the committee invite the Minister of Public Safety to appear alone for no less than two hours, and the former Minister of Public Safety Marco Mendicino to appear alone for no less than two hours, the Commissioner of Correctional Service Canada Anne Kelly, the Deputy Minister of Public Safety Shawn Tupper, the Correctional Investigator, the Federal Ombudsperson for Victims of Crime, and representatives of the victims’ families, including Tim Danson, and that the committee report its findings to the House.

I would like to give an argument as to why I think this is in the best interests.... I hope I can give fresh voice to this.

I wrote an article on this topic this morning. I entitled it “Canada has a revictimization problem, but doesn’t want to find out why.”

Last June, an uproar arose when the notorious serial rapist and killer Paul Bernardo was transferred to a medium-security prison from a maximum-security facility.

At the time, the families of Bernardo's victims were not given reasons for the transfer. A lawyer for the families, Timothy Danson, described the federal government's opaque process as having a severe revictimizing effect.

As the furor over the transfer unfolded, and more details about what happened behind the scenes emerged, it became clear that the federal government had, putting it mildly, been lacking in its oversight of the process and in its consideration for the impact it would have on victims' families. Finger-pointing between Corrective Services Canada, the agency that oversaw the transfer and the office of the now-former Minister of Public Safety, Marco Mendicino, suggested that the Minister knew ahead of the transfer but failed to act on the information.

These failures are problematic for several reasons, the primary one being that the federal government, led by Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, has been found lacking in addressing internal process concerns across various high-profile issues, even after major incidents have occurred. For example, the government that oversaw the failures in the Bernardo prison transfer also found itself in the same situation in 2018 when child-killer Terry-Lynne McClintic was transferred to a minimum security healing lodge.

This repetition begs the question, why did the government allow this failure to happen twice, and has the government taken adequate action to ensure it doesn’t [happen] again?

The answer to that question [for me] remains unclear, despite an internal report on the Bernardo transfer issued during the summer.

Which I read in its entirety. My article continues:

The report outlines some startling process gaps that led to the opacity and lack of sensitivity to victims' families, but likely not all, particularly critical errors that occurred within the office of the Minister of Public Safety. Further, the report largely failed to examine the impact of those issues from testimony directly from the experience of [victims'] families.

In that, it is currently impossible to know if adequate measures have been taken to stop this type of revictimization, including whether or not a Ministerial directive issued to Corrections Services Canada is sufficient. Today, there are very few public details about whether concrete processes have been implemented or whether victims' families feel they are appropriate.

The scrutiny for these questions and providing a forum for victims to have their say on the matter would typically fall to Members of a Parliamentary Standing Committee. Attempts made by Conservative members of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Public Safety to review the issue over the summer were rebuffed by other committee members.

I'll get to that. Yes, there is legislation in front of this committee, but I have also been following this issue. It deeply disturbed me that I had to sit in the House of Commons and listen to how the same issue that happened in 2018 happened again. I was pleased when colleagues tried to get a committee meeting during the summer so that legislation, like Bill C-20, would not be held up. This could have been done over the summer; however, that was not done.

I'll continue:

With Parliament having resumed for the fall sitting, now would seem to be an opportune time to bring the matter forward for study.

Unfortunately, the Committee has not been able to come to a consensus on whether a study is needed or what witnesses should testify should a committee study be undertaken. The last meeting of the Committee saw Liberal Parliamentary Secretary Jennifer O'Connell use procedural tactics to attempt to block the passage of a Conservative motion that would have the Minister of Public Safety appear, ostensibly to testify regarding whether or not the process issues that had occurred in his office around the transfer have been rectified. More importantly, the Conservative motion also called for an opportunity for victims' families to appear to have their say on the impact of the government's process failures and whether or not they felt measures taken to date have been sufficient.

Last week, the Conservative Vice-Chair of the Committee, Doug Shipley, signalled that Conservative members would attempt to pass their motion once again.

And here we are:

It would seem prudent for the Committee to do so, [colleagues,] given that at least two high-profile prison transfer failures have now happened under the current federal government's watch, and others have happened with less public scrutiny. For example, in 2021, the mother of a high-profile murder victim that occurred in [Parliamentary Secretary] Jennifer O'Connell's riding, Sherry Goberdhan, described the revictimization process that happened when her daughter's murder, Nicholas Baig, was transferred from a maximum security prison to a medium security facility.

There are other issues that must be explored too, like whether or not correctional services staff feel safe—

Again, we need to ensure the union has an opportunity to address this, but I'll get to that in a moment. It continues:

—and protected under current policy when these types of transfers occur, and also other prisoners who don't have dangerous offender classifications.

Parliamentarians may have differing views on how to address the issue of punishment for Canada's most heinous criminals, be it through new legislation or process reform, but it's difficult for Parliament to have that debate if Members of the governing parties or its supply-and-confidence partners...don't...allow the debate to happen to begin with.

In that, to prevent more revictimization, I think this motion should pass, the revised motion with the amendment.

Colleagues, one meeting is not adequate for this study. I appreciate that we all might have differing opinions. I also appreciate that the government might not like to revisit this issue, for whatever political reason, but the reality is that this is a pattern now.

It happened with Terri-Lynne McClintic. What happened after that? The minister who was in charge at the time failed upward, into a really great gig. We now have gone through, I think, three public safety ministers, and it happened again. We have to take time in the House of Commons to address this issue, and most importantly.... Wait, I'll get to the most important part.

When we talk about legislation and the ability to use committee time like this to review legislation, this could have been avoided if the government had taken corrective action in 2018. However, it did not, so here we are again. The most important issue as to why this needs more meetings and why we have an onus to review every step of what happened, independently and beyond the internal review that happened within the government, is that the victims' families were clearly retraumatized and clearly revictimized—again, completely unnecessarily.

To me, that was what was most striking about what was in the government's internal report. It was not just the shocking process gaps that led to the situation. It was not just that those process gaps existed after Sherry Goberdhan went through this and after the family of Tori Stafford went through this again in 2018. We weren't spending more time on it, and the victims' families had not had an opportunity to talk about the adequacy of the government's review or the government's response.

It will take more than one meeting. I'm begging colleagues in the opposition parties. A one-meeting study on this issue will only allow the government to put forward some talking points and say that everything's okay, but everything's not okay. In Bill C-20, the legislation that this committee is tasked to review right now, many things need to be reviewed. It's an important piece of legislation, I agree. However, what happened here is now a pattern. The members of this committee have an onus of responsibility to the victims' families to hold the government to account, regardless of partisan affiliation. That is what our job is here, all of us. Outside those who hold a government appointment, our role here is to hold the government to account on the report.

The report did not address Correctional Service officers' concerns. Members of this committee have not had the opportunity to scrutinize or ask members of that group about the impact of having a maximum-security dangerous offender prisoner transferred into a lower-level security facility without some sort of plan. That poses a security risk to Correctional Service officers for a wide variety of reasons. I will certainly be reaching out to the union to ensure that, if there is not an opportunity for them to testify on that, they know why. It is just beyond me.

That's number one. I also think that many families who have gone through this need to have their say. The report did not use a lens of revictimization. It was very much an internal review. I think in some ways it was navel-gazing. Maybe I'm wrong, but at the end of the day, it will take more than 45 minutes of questioning to make that determination, which I hope colleagues would do independently.

I think it's also important for this committee to then ask, with regard to the ministerial directive that was issued, which I read at length too, what steps have actually been implemented out of that. What processes have been implemented? We don't know. The committee doesn't know. Forty-five minutes or whatever's left after a round of departmentals is not enough time. It's not enough time for the committee to look at it. I think it needs to be more than three meetings to ensure that this doesn't happen again, but I understand that three meetings is kind of the red-line minimum for some of my more regular colleagues on this committee.

I also want to know what happened in the minister's office—and not for political reasons. Correctional Service Canada, I believe in late June or early July, said that the minister knew about this transfer. At least the minister's office was alerted to this. How was that rectified? I mean, this has happened twice. It's not just about changing the minister out, with all due respect to my colleague Mr. Mendicino. This is really about parliamentarians looking at whether or not adequate processes and controls exist to ensure that the finger-pointing situation doesn't happen again. Why? Because that traumatizes victims. Paul Bernardo's victims' families should not have had to watch Correctional Service Canada pointing the finger at the minister's office and the minister's office going, “Oh, I don't know. Maybe I did see the email or maybe I didn't.”

How is that not going to happen again? I do not see anything in the ministerial directive that addresses that concern or, first of all, outlines what happened. We know something happened, but we don't know what happened. That needs to be fixed.

Colleagues, this is why.... If this decision did not involve the minister's office and if there wasn't that back-and-forth between the minister's office and Correctional Service Canada, then perhaps we don't need the minister to testify. I assume he would want the opportunity to do so and to say, “Okay, this is what happened. Don't worry, guys. This is how we're going to ensure that this doesn't happen again.” I know the current Minister of Public Safety, and I like to think that he would like to fix this problem. We should hear from him on this issue.

We should also hear what happened under the past minister so that he can explain to the committee his rationale for how the ministerial directive was implemented and whether or not he thought it was sufficient, and so that it can be entered into the committee's report and recommendations to the government, because that's what this study should do. The study should result in concrete recommendations to the government to ensure that this doesn't happen again.

I also think the reason why we need a minimum of three meetings is that we should look at the impact on other situations that have had similar issues. I'm sure these families want closure. Closure comes in this instance by having a process in place that fixes the problem, but we can't get there if we don't know what the problems are. It is our duty as parliamentarians to scrutinize the government, to read those reports, to read the ministerial directives, to ask very technical questions and to ask for more information in order to make those recommendations to ensure that this doesn't happen again.

I'm not saying I know what those recommendations are, but it certainly.... Guys, this is the fourth or fifth time. It certainly bears studying and it bears our scrutiny.

I respect my colleague, the parliamentary secretary, across the way. I do. I respect her knowledge of committee procedure. I want to drive this home personally for her with a case that happened in her own riding. This is the instance of a man who, I believe, stabbed his wife 27 times.... I'm sorry. It says, “The 27-year-old woman was nine months pregnant when she was stabbed to death in Pickering in 2017.” The mother of this victim—her name was Arianna Goberdhan—was revictimized when this process failed her too.

It is very clear to me that the government has not thought about this. I would just ask my colleague, the parliamentary secretary, to give women like her the opportunity to come to the committee and speak about it.

Without getting into more sensitive topics of debate.... This was already a difficult case, because it involved the stabbing of a woman who was nine months pregnant, and the mother of the victim did not feel that justice was served. Given that I don't believe the death of the fetus was given additional consideration in sentencing.... We had legislation before the House of Commons earlier this year, which I believe my colleague spoke against.

This was already difficult to begin with, and then it was worse because this person was transferred for a life sentence from a maximum-security prison to a medium-security prison, and her only recourse for dealing with this was the media.

Can you imagine trying to get through processing the death of your daughter and a potential grandchild-to-be, and then having to go through this without any sort of sensitivity on behalf of Correctional Service Canada?

It impacts all of our ridings. I had an interaction with my colleague in the House of Commons in an Adjournment Proceedings debate. Because of what these families are going through, I really take offence with the characterization that has happened in these debates over the last few meetings that this is somehow less important or that it is somehow blocking victims' rights to have this discussion. Chair, I would just ask that colleagues give their heads a shake.

To the substance of the subamendment, I will try to persuade my colleagues. To each of the specific....

Chair, do you have a copy? Did you receive a copy of the subamendment?

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

It has been emailed, apparently.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

I have outlined the rationale for having the ministers here. I think the current minister has to be here to talk about what procedures have been put in place within their office. Correctional Service Canada cannot speak to that, so the minister has to speak to what processes have been put in place to do things like ensuring that the minister reads his email on issues like this. That's number one.

I would assume that the Minister of Public Safety, the new one, would be okay with coming to committee on that. I think we should have him here for that reason, to articulate what processes have been put in place to rectify the situation. But then we can't scrutinize whether or not what he says is adequate unless the previous minister of public safety comes in to explain what he believes happened.

In reading some of the articles on this issue, I don't think he ever said that his staff knew, but Correctional Service Canada said that his staff knew, so I think we need to clarify that. That's problematic. Were there any remedial measures taken? I want to know who's lying—or perhaps not lying, but people are talking over each other in this situation. Correctional Service Canada said the minister's office knew. The minister's office said they did not know. Regardless of prosecuting that point, that situation cannot happen again.

The committee should be asking itself what processes, from the perspective of the minister's office, are going to be put in place to rectify this. The ministerial directive did not address that anywhere. I'm not sure if colleagues have read the directive, but that is why the ministers need to be there. The ministers need to be there, at a minimum, and that's why the subamendment needs to pass. My colleague's original motion did not have the ministers attending, and that is a huge problem in moving forward with this—it really is.

Second, I believe we're going to have a large degree of interest from victims services groups and families. I'm not sure if I'm disclosing anything, but I believe there is interest from the representative of the families in this case to have a say publicly on this matter. The reason that's important is that I do not think Correctional Service Canada or the government has looked at the process through the lens of the victims.

I'm just looking at the wording here: “the rights of victims of crime and the security reclassification and transfer of offenders within federal corrections.” The reason the motion needs to be broadened is that this process, the victims lens process, needs to be reviewed from their point of view. Frankly, I think they're subject matter experts on this in a way that we just aren't, or in a way that Correctional Service Canada is not.

The ministerial directive states:

More can be done to ensure that a trauma-informed and victim-sensitive approach is factored into the decision making process as regards transfers and security classifications. This means meaningfully engaging with victims to elicit input on a transfer prior to its occurrence.

What that “meaningful engagement” means cannot be directed by simply the minister or Correctional Service Canada without public scrutiny by this committee. Victims should have the opportunity to come here to speak and say exactly what that means in terms of operationalization. Then members of this committee should be able to go back to the government and recommend policy, perhaps additional legislation, changes in procedure, changes in communications—whatever—based on that determination or that testimony.

Again, with respect to my colleague's original motion, it does not have any opportunity for victims to testify, and that's a huge problem. They're the ones we're here to protect. That is why we should be ensuring we do not have this perpetual revictimization process.

I think what needs to happen is three meetings. I would hope that colleagues, particularly within the opposition parties, would be open to negotiating something in this regard.

Another thing—and I want to re-emphasize this—is that the directive has nothing in here with regard to correctional services officer safety. I feel like they've been, perhaps, removed from this conversation as well. Perhaps if this amendment does pass—I hope it passes—colleagues would be open to ensuring they have a voice, too.

Colleagues, as I said in the article that I put out this morning, we as parliamentarians might not agree on an approach to dealing with people like Paul Bernardo, but the debate needs to happen. Our responsibility is to hold the government to account, especially in instances of a pattern.

With that, chair, I would implore, with deep respect, all of my colleagues to support this amendment, and if they want to make other suggestions on how to deal with this, to do so—again, not to retract the number of statements so that this issue is given lip service by the government through talking points, but to make sure it is given the scrutiny it deserves by all members of all political parties, so that victims' families are given a say in the matter on determining whether or not the ministerial directive is put in place.

The Terri-Lynne McClintic thing in 2018.... If you didn't have the opportunity to be through that debate, it was deeply uncomfortable. Then to have it happen again.... Let's make sure it doesn't happen again.

Let's have a robust study of this. It could have happened in the summer, but it didn't, so we're sitting here, with witnesses sitting here. I get that, but guys, we need three meetings. We need to have the victims at the table. We need to have the union at the table, and we need to determine whether or not the process has actually been fixed.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

The amendment has been distributed. It is noted as a subamendment. That's an error. It is an amendment.

The debate continues on the amendment.

We go to Mr. Bittle, followed by Mr. Genuis, followed by Mr. Julian.

Mr. Bittle, go ahead, please.

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

I've made my concerns about this known, but I would like to reiterate them. This case, this offender, whose name I don't even want to mention in this place.... It's a painful thing for the people of Niagara. I remember living through this when I was growing up. It's deeply painful for all the residents, especially the families. The wishes of the families are top of mind for me. I know they are top of mind for my constituents, as well.

I was concerned when members, last week, were saying, “We're speaking on behalf of the families.” I interrupted and asked for clarification last week. I said, “I'm curious if it could be answered for us—and it would shed some light on things—whether anyone has spoken to Mr. Danson or the victims' families.” The answer back from the opposition was, and I'm quoting from Hansard, “Yes, they have.” I asked that member, who said she had letters, if she could provide me with those letters. I didn't hear anything back. As I'm concerned about the thoughts of the families, I reached out to Mr. Danson, who—Ms. Rempel Garner is right—is interested in appearing, but no one had reached out to him. We've had multiple meetings of filibustering, with people saying, “We are here for the rights of the families” and using their names, using these tragic circumstances, without even having the courtesy to reach out.

I support Ms. O'Connell's motion. I believe Mr. Danson should be here.

When I look at the difference between the amendment and the motion, in this amendment there's actually less time for victims' representatives to appear. If it's a three-meeting study and two of the meetings are members of Parliament coming to testify—which this committee knows it cannot compel—that leaves a two-hour study for this.

I believe wholeheartedly in Ms. Rempel Garner's advocacy for victims. She has been consistent in my eight years here. She mentioned correctional services and said they've been removed from the conversation. She spoke eloquently about how they should be included, but she brought forward an amendment that didn't include them. It was in her control to do it. It was top of mind. It was one of the first points she spoke to. She told us to give our heads a shake. I direct that back to the Conservative Party, Mr. Chair. This is painful.

There is consensus among the members at this table to hear from Mr. Danson, the representative of the French and Mahaffy families. There is consensus to hear from correctional services and to have meetings about this, but not to let the filibuster block this. We have, conservatively, 20 government officials sitting here, waiting to help us out on legislation. Conservatives say this is important legislation, but the lengthy filibuster, using this horrendous act, doesn't show that.

The point was made clear to me, Mr. Chair—when I walked into this room and a member of the Conservative Party was putting together what I assume is a fundraising video and smiling as he was showing his assistant the video, as he had his mic set up and was ready to go, ready to post it to social media—that this is a game for the Conservatives. It's truly unfortunate.

I really do want to hear from Mr. Danson. I believe the families....

Maybe we're getting an original clip of that video from the back of the room. I guess they are taking a look at that to see. I guess we got a brief introduction to that.

This committee does need to hear from the family members, through their representative, Mr. Danson. It's unfortunate that the Conservatives choose not to reach out to that family but to make statements and use them as props. It is deeply insulting to this place and to the people of Niagara to use this tragedy as torque for political gain.

This amendment doesn't give the victims' families more opportunity to speak, so I can't support it and I will be voting against it.

I hope we can get through to the areas where we do have consensus and move on so we can hear about an important piece of legislation and get through that, so we can then get to the case at hand and hear from these families. We've agreed on this point, but delay after delay, filibuster after filibuster, the Conservatives are delaying that opportunity for the victims' families to speak. It's almost as if they don't want it and would rather just torque and continue to fundraise off it, which is just absolutely disgusting.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you, Mr. Bittle.

We go now to Mr. Genuis, followed by Mr. Julian, followed by Mr. Motz.

Mr. Genuis, go ahead, please.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Chair, thank you for this opportunity to address the motion moved by Ms. O'Connell and the amendment put forward by my colleague.

I'll say a few words of clarification at the outset. Both Liberal members who spoke have referenced the fact that I was recording a social media post prior to this meeting. I don't think there's anything wrong with my communicating on a regular basis with my constituents about things that are happening in committee. Out of interest, it had nothing to do with fundraising. It was a video recorded on a parliamentary device, updating my constituents on parliamentary activities and making it very clear, in the context of that post, that Conservatives will be continuously advocating for families of victims, as well as their representatives, to be heard on this issue. There's nothing unusual about our view. That's a legitimate position, the right position, and something that constituents should be aware of.

I make no apologies for informing people about my activities in Parliament. It's curious that it became a real talking point latched on to by Liberal members. Respectfully, I would encourage them to be communicating with their constituents, too, about the things they are doing in Parliament—and in this case, frankly, their failure to work to include the voices of victims in this conversation.

In particular, chair, we are seized with this comparison between the motion that Ms. O'Connell has put forward and the amendment that my colleague has put forward. I think a couple of observations about this are important.

One, Mr. Bittle suggested that our motion provides less time to hear from people about this issue. On the face of it, that's obviously false, because the original motion says that the committee hold “a” meeting, one meeting.

Sorry, if you want to provide a clarification formally—

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

I have a point of order.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Mr. Bittle, go ahead.

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

Mr. Chair, can you direct Mr. Genuis not to yell into the mic? The interpreters don't need to hear.... He's quite loud enough. It's not a problem for me, in terms of volume of voice, but—

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

I don't think I was yelling, but I can speak even more softly if that would be preferred by Mr. Bittle.

The motion that Mr. Bittle put forward has “a” meeting, which I believe means one meeting and only one meeting, and in fact constrains the committee.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

You're a little confused: Mr. Bittle did not put forward a motion.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Chair, I'm sorry. I misspoke. It's the motion from his side, the government side. Mr. Bittle defended it by saying that it in fact allows for more discussion of the issue than the amended version. Mr. Bittle's argument is incorrect, because the motion put forward by his colleague, Ms. O'Connell, references “a” meeting, one meeting, and I will note that the amendment the Conservatives have put forward calls for a minimum of three meetings.

If Mr. Bittle is authentically concerned about the fact that our motion doesn't provide enough time for consideration of this issue, we could, of course, consider a subamendment that would have a minimum of four meetings or five meetings. I don't think that would be objectionable to members on this side. It does say “a minimum of three meetings”, which I think would provide an opportunity for the committee to go further down this road if the committee wishes to.

It is a bald-faced fabrication to suggest that the amendment provides less time for consideration of this issue, and I think it is a fairly obvious and easily verifiable fabrication. It's evident in the first line, in the first phrase of both: “that the committee hold a meeting” is replaced with “that the committee hold a minimum of three meetings”—

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Mr. Genuis, I would advise you not to use the word “fabrication” here. That implies dishonesty. We are expected to assume that everyone is speaking honestly. We cannot do indirectly what we cannot do directly.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Thank you, Chair. That is a more challenging assumption in some cases than in others, but I will endeavour to submit to your authority in this, as in all things.

The no doubt unintentional misstatement of Mr. Bittle has been, no doubt, addressed. I also want to identify....

I'm sorry. Maybe Ms. O'Connell has a point of order or maybe it's just heckling.

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

No, I was just speaking.