Evidence of meeting #76 for Public Safety and National Security in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was chair.
A video is available from Parliament.
5:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
Mr. Genuis, you keep going back over a decision that has been made. We're not going back to that decision. It has been made. It has been supported by the committee.
The question is whether or not to release the witnesses, to whom I am eternally grateful for being here yet again, but I don't see any unanimous consent to do so.
5:55 p.m.
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
Chair, just on that point of order, if I may, I am not going back to the previous matter, although I maintain the view that your decision was deeply flawed—
5:55 p.m.
Liberal
5:55 p.m.
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
The issue here is the question of the witnesses.
If you believe, as you've concluded, that something else was the matter at hand, then you shouldn't have invited witnesses on a different matter. It doesn't make any sense. Out of respect for the witnesses' time, you shouldn't have invited them if there was a different matter at hand.
5:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
Mr. Genuis, you are out of order.
The matter has been decided. We're not going to debate it at length.
Mr. Julian came up with a suggestion, but there is no unanimous consent, so the witnesses, at this time, cannot be released. We will carry on with the debate.
Mr. Motz, you were under way.
5:55 p.m.
Conservative
Glen Motz Conservative Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB
Thank you, Chair.
First of all, let me begin by apologizing to Mr. Bittle for the comment I made. It certainly doesn't foster a conversation that we're hoping to resolve. He can accept it or not. That's up to him.
I will continue with this motion and the conversation on this motion.
We all agreed around this table—at least I hope we did. There certainly wasn't any support initially when we began this process in mid-September about having any committee time spent on security transfers, security reclassifications, all those things related to the subject matter. I think we've come around to the fact that yes, we need to have meetings on this.
The issue boils down not so much to whom we're going to invite, because I think there is some agreement on the majority of the people we want to invite to do this study—we might want to add a name or take one off, whatever—and we're close on time.
As I said the other day, I don't know why the government would be so concerned about giving a study that has implications more far-reaching than just the Bernardo transfer.... There are dozens of transfers that occur with similar individuals, some with more than one murder conviction—multiple murder convictions—and they are moved from maximum-security to medium-security prisons. It impacts a significant number of victims and victims' families in this country.
I think it would be important for us to have not just lip service to a study, but at least an attempt to hear from those who have something to tell us that might actually allow the government to change legislation to prevent these things from happening at the rate they're happening, and actually deal with victims' rights. That's exactly what this should be about.
I support the effort of Mr. Julian to bring something forward that is close to workable. I still can't agree to a three-hour meeting. It's not sufficient, in my opinion, to deal with the people who will be called to present at committee. I would ask colleagues to consider adding hours to meetings, and then we can move on. We've spent an inordinate amount of time dealing with this issue. For the Canadian public, who are embarrassed for all of us at this table, on all sides, the issue is why: Why would the government be so dug in on an issue for an hour or two of time? That is the question I get asked by people who have watched us online.
Excuse me?
6 p.m.
Conservative
Glen Motz Conservative Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB
Thank you.
Those are the questions I get, Mr. Chair. Why would the government not want this discussed? Why would the government not want its bill to be reviewed so there is a mechanism that has appropriate communication to victims' families and has the ability to limit those transfers? It surprises me, but I hope we can come to some sort of a compromise today with respect to the work we have at hand. I would hope that colleagues from all sides would come to a reasonable decision on how we move forward with this.
I'm sorry, Mr. Julian, but I can't commit to one three-hour meeting, or three hours total. It just doesn't work for the level of importance that this holds with our justice system.
Thank you, Chair.
October 18th, 2023 / 6 p.m.
Bloc
Kristina Michaud Bloc Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
We have spent more than six and a half hours debating a number of motions that all deal with the same thing. The opinion of every party represented here has been heard. I think the Liberals proposed a motion in good faith at our last meeting, and I think Mr. Julian has in good faith moved a motion that provides a reasonable compromise so as not to further delay the study of Bill C‑20.
I'm not sure whether my fellow committee members feel the same, but I struggle to look witnesses in the eye because I'm embarrassed to bring them before the committee. I know this is costing taxpayers a ton of money. I'm not sure whether you know how much, Mr. Chair. Perhaps the clerk can send us the information. Our constituents need to know what we're doing here. The study of a very important bill is being held up.
People are writing us. Every single member here has gotten emails from people who are very eager for our study of Bill C‑20. I've even met stakeholders who are also worried about the study of Bill C‑26, which we are supposed to deal with after the study on Bill C‑20. That means the Bill C‑26 study is also being delayed. I think it's tremendously unfortunate, not to mention disrespectful to the people here, who surely have better things to do. Their expertise could be helping us in our study of Bill C‑20.
As I said, I think Mr. Julian has put forward an acceptable compromise, but I do have a few minor technical questions. The French version of the motion starts off, “Que le Comité permanent de la sécurité publique et nationale tienne immédiatement une réunion de 3 heures, à la suite de l’étude du projet de loi C‑20”. I was wondering whether “immédiatement” is really what's meant, as opposed to “après”, meaning after the study of Bill C‑20. The English version says, “immediately after”, so the meaning may have gotten lost in translation. I'm not sure whether we can sort that so the French version is clear as well, without necessarily going through a subamendment.
I also have a question about the one-hour in camera meeting being requested so the committee can be briefed on trauma-informed questioning at committee. I'm wondering what purpose that will serve, since the people we hear from are not necessarily victims. Is that additional hour really necessary?
As for Mr. Shipley's amendment, we'll be back to square one if we hold three meetings on this. I think inviting the minister for one three-hour meeting and another two-hour meeting is an acceptable compromise. That is five hours of debate, after all. When it comes to inviting former public safety minister Marco Mendicino, he lost his portfolio, so I think we can leave him out of this. It's not his job to answer these questions. The motion already calls on the committee to invite the current Minister of Public Safety to answer our questions.
I'm ready to vote on the amendment and the motion so we can move on to studying Bill C‑20, but I would appreciate it if Mr. Julian could answer my questions.
6:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
The clerk has taken notice of the deficiencies and will address them.
I would point out that if we were to pass this motion.... When we finish clause-by-clause on Bill C-20, we still have to ramp up for Bill C-26. We don't know when it is, so this might be an opportunity to fill in between the two studies in an effective, useful way. That's how I think we would approach it if we were to pass this motion.
Mr. Julian, do you wish to respond to those questions?
6:05 p.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC
Yes, of course, Mr. Chair.
In the first case, you rightly explained that this would come after the Bill C‑20 study.
The briefing on trauma-informed questioning at committee is something we included for the Conservatives, who wanted to ask victims about the issue. Those of us on the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage found it very helpful to have that education before hearing from victims. The motion doesn't close the door to that at all, but the committee members aren't currently equipped for the appearance of victims.
I feel it's important for the committee to be briefed on how to question victims in a trauma-informed way, and I believe Ms. Rempel Garner was in agreement. We would be more equipped and better educated if, as a committee, we decided to invite victims to appear on this matter or any other down the road. As I said, the heritage committee found the briefing very beneficial. We learned a lot, and it improved how we interacted with victims.
6:05 p.m.
Liberal
6:10 p.m.
Conservative
Glen Motz Conservative Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB
Could I just have a point of clarification on Mr. Julian's comment?
6:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
Yes, go ahead on a quick point of clarification, which we'll take as a brief point of order.
6:10 p.m.
Conservative
Glen Motz Conservative Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB
On this motion, is the one hour...? I think having trauma-informed training is very important, not only on this matter but on other ones that we possibly could deal with, as you mentioned. Are you suggesting, then, that this is additional time, that this isn't part of our study time? This is additional time—ahead of time or whenever—to have this training in camera that's not part of any sort of time that we set aside for the study. Is that correct?
6:10 p.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC
Yes and no. Yes, in the sense that it opens the door, if this committee decides later, after hearing the testimony from the first two meetings, the first meeting being that three-hour meeting that was proposed with the witnesses, which I think we all agreed on.... The second meeting would be the Minister of Public Safety on this issue and any other issue that deals with the minister's mandate. Following that, if we have the trauma-informed briefing, it allows the committee, potentially, if we decide to invite witnesses who are victims either on this issue or on any other issue, to be better prepared.
If you ask me right now if I would be prepared to invite victims, as I mentioned two days ago at our committee, I would not be prepared at this point to invite victims to the committee, in the same way that I don't think we as a committee were ready for the Canadian heritage committee to invite the victims of the sexual assaults that, tragically, we saw in far too many Canadian sport organizations.
I believe the committee needs to do the work first, before we can contemplate what the next steps may be.
6:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
Okay.
We go now to Mr. Genuis.
I will remind everyone that we're debating at this time the amendment by Mr. Shipley, which is about whether we do three meetings or one three-hour meeting plus the others.
6:10 p.m.
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
Thank you very much, Chair, for the opportunity to address the committee on this amendment.
I did want to make a comment on the issue of decorum, because it has been raised by a number of members. Look, there has been some back-and-forth, some talking over, some interrupting that has happened at the meeting—
6:10 p.m.
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
Thank you, Mr. Bittle, for helping to reinforce my point. It is helpful. It's illustrative of the phenomenon we're dealing with.
6:10 p.m.
Conservative
