Public Safety Committee on Oct. 23rd, 2023

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

I'll have Madame Michaud respond.

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

Thank you.

That's a very good question. It may indeed be because of the of the minister's previous title in the last Parliament.

I'm looking forward to the committee hearing from the current Minister of Public Safety, Mr. Dominic Leblanc. This matter may be beyond the mandate of Minister of Emergency Preparedness. These words could simply be deleted in the English and French versions of the motion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

The clerk has advised me that he can modify the minutes to strike those words, and that we can carry on so that it will be moved with just “the Minister of Public Safety”.

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

That's perfect, yes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Mr. Gaheer.

[Iqwinder Gaheer, Liberal, Mississauga—Malton, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

This is an extremely serious problem, and I'd like to thank my Bloc colleague for bringing this motion forward.

When Minister Mendicino held the post, we were actually able to visit a CBSA facility at Pearson airport. This was probably half a year ago, I believe. We were able to see what measures are taken to prevent contraband from being transported and what measures are being taken to prevent car theft.

The region that I'm from, Peel Region—which includes Mississauga, Brampton, and Caledon—is particularly hard hit. We probably have the highest level of car theft in the country. This is something that my constituents raise to me all the time. I hear it every single day. I would definitely like to see the measures that are taken at the Port of Montreal. I would support a visit to the port, as well. This is something that I raised to our provincial counterparts and to the local police force.

I'm very supportive of this motion.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Mr. Schiefke.

[Peter Schiefke, Liberal, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I fully support the motion put forward by my colleague Ms. Michaud. It's something that affects families, not only in terms of their finances because of rising insurance premiums every year, but also their quality of life.

In my community of Vaudreuil—Soulanges, every single week that goes by, we have cars stolen. People wake up, and they are unable to go to work. Parents are unable to take their children to school.

This is an issue that touches Canadians no matter where they're situated across the country. I want to thank my honourable colleague for putting this motion forward.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you, Mr. Schiefke.

Mr. Lloyd.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

In the spirit of consensus, I also want to say that I am in support of this motion. This is an issue that's actually quite personal to me, as my vehicle was stolen. I did recover it, thanks to the tracking technology that many companies are putting into their vehicles. Unfortunately, much of this tracking technology is subscription-based. If you don't pay for your subscription, you won't have this very important capability for getting your vehicle back. I think that's a very important part of this that we need to discuss as well: the new technologies that can enable the retrieval of stolen vehicles.

This is a national issue, because it is not only providing an immense amount of capital for organized crime but also driving up insurance premiums for all Canadians. The cost of living crisis is very real right now, and the last thing that Canadians want to see when their mortgages are going up and when their grocery prices are going up is their insurance premiums going up so that they can use a tool that is very necessary to enable them to get to work to support their families. This is not only a public safety issue but also an essential cost of living issue. If we have the federal government come forward with a strong action plan to deter these vehicle thefts, then I think we'll see a corresponding benefit to all Canadians through lower insurance premiums and through an enhanced feeling of safety in our communities. Perhaps most importantly, it will do significant damage to the financial capabilities of organized crime.

I'll be very supportive of this. Thank you to my colleague for bringing it forward.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you, Mr. Lloyd.

Mr. Shipley.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'll be supporting this also. Thank you to our Bloc colleague for bringing this forward.

I have two quick things to add to this, and then I think we can probably move on after a vote.

This is a very serious problem. I was astounded to find out that residents in Toronto are now installing their own mechanical bollards at the ends of their own driveways as the only way to keep their cars in their driveways. That is just astounding to me. The cost of those alone must be astronomical, but that's what's going on.

I also heard further that this appears—I'm sure we'll learn more in our study—to be an organized crime concern. They are actually placing orders for which cars they want, which kind of shocked me a bit. They want six of this car and five of that model, and they're just going out almost like they're shopping for these cars.

It's a very serious problem. I agree with what all of my colleagues have said today. Once we get to that study, I look forward to hearing some more information on it.

I will be supporting this.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you, Mr. Shipley.

Seeing no more speakers, I suggest that we go to a vote.

(Motion agreed to)

That was carried. Congratulations.

We'll now welcome the officials who are with us. They are available for questions regarding the bill, but will not deliver any opening statements.

With the Canada Border Services Agency, we Cathy Maltais, director, recourse directorate. From the Civilian Review and Complaints Commission for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, we have Joanne Gibb, senior director, strategic operations and policy directorate; and Lesley McCoy, general counsel. From the Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, we have Randall Koops, director general, international and border policy; Martin Leuchs, manager, border policy division; and Deidre Pollard-Bussey, director, policing policy; and from the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, we have Kathleen Clarkin, director, national recruiting program; and Alfredo Bangloy, assistant commissioner and professional responsibility officer.

Thank you all for joining us today.

I would like to provide the members of the committee with a few comments on how committees proceed with clause-by-clause consideration of a bill. Many of us have gone through this before, but some of us are new to the process.

I'm not going to read this whole thing. I'll just sketch out some points.

This is an examination of all the clauses that appear in the bill, in order. I will call each clause successively, and each clause is subject to debate and a vote. If there are amendments to the clause in question, I will recognize the member proposing it, who may explain it. The amendment will then be open for debate. When no further members wish to intervene, the amendment will be voted on. Amendments will be considered in the order in which they appear in the package that each member has received from the clerk. If there are amendments that are consequential to each other, they will be voted on together.

In addition to having to be properly drafted, in a legal sense, amendments must also be procedurally admissible. The chair may be called upon to rule amendments inadmissible if they go against the principle of the bill or beyond the scope of the bill, both of which were adopted by the House when it agreed to the bill at second reading, or if they offend the financial prerogative of the Crown.

If you wish to eliminate a clause of the bill altogether, the proper course of action is to vote against that clause when the time comes, not to propose an amendment to delete it.

Since this is the first exercise for many new members, the chair will go slowly to allow all members to follow proceedings properly. If during the process the committee decides not to vote on a clause, that clause can be put aside by the committee so that we visit it later in the process.

Amendments have been given a number in the top right-hand corner to indicate which party submitted them. There is no need for a seconder to move an amendment. Once your amendment has been moved, you will need unanimous consent to withdraw it.

During debate on an amendment, members are permitted to move subamendments. These subamendments do not require the approval of the mover of the amendment. Only one subamendment may be considered at a time. That subamendment cannot be amended.

Once every clause has been voted on, the committee will vote on the title of the bill itself. An order to reprint the bill may be required, and so on.

I thank members for their attention and wish everyone a productive clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-20.

All right, pursuant to Standing Order 75(1), consideration of clause 1, the short title, is postponed.

(On clause 2)

On clause 2, first up is CPC-0.1.

Mr. Lloyd, do you wish to speak to this?

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

No, but I do on another matter, quickly.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Okay.

Go ahead, Mr. Shipley.

Oh, I'm sorry. You had your hand up first. Go ahead.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

It's in the interest of time.

I've received a lot of questions from stakeholders that were to be directed to officials. I want to know this, Mr. Chair: If I submit them in written form, could we have an agreement that officials will do their best to respond to those questions in written form—

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

I can't commit for the officials, but—

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

—or that the committee will ask officials to respond to our...?

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Let's save that for later. It's out of—

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

I wasn't sure when to say it, but I wanted to do it early.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

I appreciate the heads-up.

Mr. Shipley, go ahead. It's CPC-0.1, I believe.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I very quickly would like to, first of all, thank the officials and staff for being here today, and thank them for their patience over the last few weeks.

I will not be moving CPC-0.1 to CPC-0.7, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Okay.

Shall clause 2 carry?

(Clause 2 agreed to)

(On clause 3)

We have NDP-1.

Mr. Julian, please go ahead.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I want to make a brief comment on the last seven Conservative amendments.

Having the drafters draft this up backwards and forwards is a significant cost to the taxpayers. If the Conservatives were presenting seven amendments they had no intention of moving, I think that's unfortunate. Conservatives are the first to talk about waste, and this was waste. It was a waste of time.

As I mentioned earlier, the fact that our witnesses have been waiting for a month now is also indicative of a strategy I simply do not understand.

That being said, I want to thank our witnesses for being here, going through the last month and being available now for questions. I'm sure my colleagues will have questions.

I want to move NDP-1. It ensures that the commission would include representatives from indigenous, Black, racialized and northern communities. This is in line, Mr. Chair, as you know, with recommendation 3 on page 4 of “Systemic Racism in Policing in Canada”, a report that provides the inspiration for this amendment. The reality is, the government response to that report also indicated that it is in the interest of the public to have a commission that includes representatives from groups that tend to be marginalized by the justice system and, often, by our institutions. They're often overrepresented, as well, in the incarceration system.

Therefore, what NDP-1 attempts to do is ensure that this diversity is present at every level of the commission. Hopefully, the commission will operate much more effectively than the existing structures that are in place.

I'm sure my colleagues will have questions.

On behalf of the NDP, I move that amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you, Mr. Julian.

We'll go now to Ms. O'Connell, followed by Madame Michaud.