Public Safety Committee on Oct. 23rd, 2023

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

I call this meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 77 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 resumes 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.

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

I recognize Mr. Shipley.

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

Thank you, Chair.

I hope everybody had a good weekend.

Chair, I'd like to move a motion that was put on notice last week. I'll read it out:

That the committee hold three meetings lasting two hours each, immediately after the study of Bill C-20, on the rights of victims of crime, the security reclassification and transfer of offenders within Correctional Service Canada, including Paul Bernardo's transfer from maximum-security to medium-security prison.

That the committee invite to appear:

1. The Commissioner of Correctional Service Canada, Anne Kelly; Deputy Minister of Public Safety Shawn Tupper; the Correctional Investigator; the Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime;

2. Representatives of the victims' families and friends, including Tim Danson;

3. Representative(s) of the Union of Canadian Correctional Officers...and the Union of Safety and Justice Employees....

Furthermore, that the committee invite immediately the Minister of Public Safety and department officials to appear for two hours to discuss his mandate.

Finally, that the Committee hold a one-hour in camera meeting to be briefed on trauma-informed questioning of victims at committee, in order to be prepared to receive future testimony from victims.

I would like to speak just very briefly to this.

I'm hoping, Chair, that we've come to an agreement on this. There have been a lot of discussions. We have spent a lot of time on this. I think this covers everything, hopefully, that all sides have wanted, including some additions and deletions. I have nothing further to say on it. I think we have other things to move on with, and I'd like to see where this goes today.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

All right.

Mr. Julian, go ahead.

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

I appreciate Mr. Shipley for basically re-presenting the motion that the NDP presented at the last meeting as a way to get through the impasse we've had over the course of the last month.

Mr. Chair, you talked about “resuming consideration” of Bill C-20, but the reality is that we have yet to consider one clause of Bill C-20, despite the fact we've been working for over a month, because of the Conservative filibuster. I guess I would say, with the exception of some quibbles—and I look forward to what my colleagues have to say about this—that this is essentially the same type of motion I presented weeks ago.

My question for my Conservative colleagues would be this. Why did it take them a month to basically accept the good common sense of what the NDP was offering at that time? That being said, better late than never. If the Conservatives have come around, I think that's good.

Bill C-20, for a whole range of reasons, needs to be properly considered. We've had witnesses that we've had to dismiss repeatedly over the course of the last few weeks, at a cost of tens of thousands of dollars to taxpayers. They all have important work to do, and we've retained them here, basically, to hear a Conservative filibuster.

If it's the consensus of the committee to adopt this motion, then that is a good thing. I just regret that the Conservatives didn't see the light a month ago.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you.

Ms. Michaud, you have the floor.

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

I'd like to comment on a different topic. I will therefore wait until we have voted on this motion.

I fully agree that we could well have reached this consensus much earlier. It's the compromise that Mr. Julian had put forward.

I'm in favour of this motion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you.

Is there any further discussion?

I have Mr. Shipley.

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

Chair, I really don't want to get into a debate. I just want to make a clarification.

I don't believe any other motions that came forward had that we were going to have three two-hour meetings.... That's what we've always been asking for. I just want to make sure that's clear on the record. There was talk about one three-hour meeting, but we're asking for three of two hours.... Again, I don't want to get into any debate on this. I'd just like to see a vote.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Okay. Is there any further discussion?

Then let's vote on this.

(Motion agreed to)

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Back to you, Ms. Michaud.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm very pleased that this matter has been settled.

My intent is really not to further delay the study of bill C-20, but there is one important study I would like to propose to the committee. I discussed it with my colleagues prior to the meeting.

I'm going to read the motion that I would like to introduce, Mr. Chair, and then would ask you to determine whether there is unanimous consent for us to debate it here today. I don't think it would take very long, because everyone appears to agree on the issue, but unanimous consent is nevertheless required.

The motion has just now been sent to the clerk. Here it is:

That, in light of the drastic increase in the number of car thefts in Canada and given that the port of Montreal, the largest in Eastern Canada, is a hub for exporting stolen cars, the Committee undertake a study, pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), on the growing problem of car thefts in Canada and on the measures the federal government has taken to combat this criminal activity; That the study include six meetings; That the Committee invite the ministers of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness to appear, along with other witnesses depending on the Committee’s needs; That the Committee report its recommendations to the House; and That the government provide a response to the Committee after it receives the report.

Mr. Chair, do I need to have unanimous consent before commenting on the motion? What's the procedure to follow?

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

You can't move it at the moment, because we haven't had notice, but you can ask for unanimous consent to move it now, and if that is given, then, of course, you can carry on.

I take it you are going to ask for unanimous consent to move the motion at this time.

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

Yes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Do we have unanimous consent?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Very well. You have unanimous consent. You may move the motion.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to thank my colleagues.

As I mentioned, the theft and subsequent export of vehicles is a growing problem in Canada, and the Port of Montreal is where it's happening most, and not only for vehicles being stolen in Quebec. Indeed, 60% of the vehicles that end up at the Port of Montreal were stolen in Ontario. They are put in sealed containers and then shipped to countries in Africa, the Middle East and Europe.

Last year, the number of thefts doubled in Quebec, with approximately 1,000 every month. Last year, insurance companies paid consumers nearly $1 billion in compensation. It's becoming a problem that affects everyone. I would venture to say that every one of us here knows at least someone who has had a car stolen.

The government has some responsibility in this area, because the Canada Border Services Agency is a government agency which, according to its employees, is not making this problem a priority. It is in fact at the bottom of its priority list.

There are only five officers at the Port of Montreal responsible for searching over 580,000 containers a year. The x-ray scanner used for the containers only works about half of the time. There is an obvious shortage of staff and equipment, and not enough commitment and co-operation.

I am mentioning co-operation because a joint unit was set up in March 2022. The unit is made up of the Montreal and Longueuil police departments, the Sûreté du Québec, the RCMP, and Équité Association, an organization that focuses mainly on stopping the export of stolen vehicles. The Agency refused to join this unit even though it is the only body authorized to open and search container contents if there are suspicions. It doesn't always do so, even when certain high-risk containers are reported to them.

The Agency and the Government of Canada are clearly responsible. There were media reports about this issue last week and over the weekend, and both the Canada Border Services Agency and the government refused to answer questions from the media. If we were to invite them to appear before our committee, that would give us the opportunity to ask some rather difficult questions and to get some answers. The government needs to explain how it intends to deal with the vehicle theft epidemic, which some have called a national crisis.Minister of Public Safety

As I just mentioned, I discussed this with my colleagues earlier. I know that our committee workload is rather heavy, and I'm as keen as anyone to begin discussing the bill. However, it would be great if we could adopt this motion today, because it would enable us to add this study to our to-do list and to address it at an appropriate time. Many Canadians are looking for answers to the problem. C-20

I hope that my colleagues will vote in favour of my motion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you.

We'll go now to Mr. Motz, followed by Mr. Julian.

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

Mr. Chair, I have a point of order.

We have a member appearing virtually. Has the motion been sent around to everyone?

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

The email will be ready momentarily. Thank you.

Mr. Motz, go ahead.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to my Bloc colleague for the introduction of this motion. I support it 100%.

We know that Ontario and Quebec have been especially targeted by organized crime. Auto thefts are up by around 50% so far this year compared to last year, and 90% of vehicles taken from Ontario and Quebec end up in the Port of Montreal. Each day in Toronto, over 50 cars are stolen, and carjacking is becoming a greater risk as well.

The public safety impact of that is significant, and I support this 100%. In fact, as part of this, I think we should also include the possibility of spending a day at the Port of Montreal to get first-hand knowledge and experience from CBSA officials there, to see what's happening on the ground.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you.

Mr. Julian.

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

I'm in favour of this motion, Mr. Chair. I'm glad that Ms. Michaud proposed it today. We're talking about a crucial factor in efforts to combat organized crime.

At the moment, the fact that there are too few inspections at the Port of Montreal, the Port of Vancouver and ports in other parts in Canada, definitely has an impact on our ability to take down criminal networks. We don't have the resources needed, because the government has been negligent in this area. Indeed, over a 20-year period, fewer and fewer resources were being allocated to the port system.

This has also had an impact on public safety, because it can lead to a smuggling hub in Canada, whether at the Port of Montreal or the Port of Vancouver.

It's therefore extremely important for us to look into this matter. It's also important to go to the Port of Montreal and the Port of Vancouver to see just how lax things are in terms of the inspections needed for the police to counter criminal networks.

There are not enough inspections for either exports or imports. Port system unions and workers have said so repeatedly.

I am therefore fully in favour of the motion for this study. It's important for the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security to look into the problem, and also to consider what solutions and investments are needed to do something about this epidemic.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you, Mr. Julian.

We'll go to Ms. O'Connell, followed by Mr. Gaheer. Mr. Schiefke will be after that.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair. This is a serious issue, and I'm glad that the member opposite has brought forward this motion. I'm supportive of it.

I just have a question of clarification. I know that the member, Ms. Michaud, has been talking about and wanting to bring this forward for a while. I wonder if the language is, perhaps, from the previous session. I'm curious as to why it would be “the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness”. Maybe that is just because that was the previous title of the minister. Should it be “the Minister of Public Safety and the Minister of Emergency Preparedness”? I'm not sure what the role of the Minister of Emergency Preparedness would be in this; it might just be because of the previous title. If there's an explanation for why we would need the Minister of Emergency Preparedness, I'm willing to hear it. However, I think that this should be rectified if it's just the previous title of the minister. Otherwise, I'm supportive.