Public Safety Committee on Feb. 17th, 2022

[The Clerk]

The question is that the debate be now adjourned.

(Motion negatived: nays 6; yeas 5)

[The Chair, Liberal, Jim Carr]

Then the discussion on the motion and the proposed amendment continues.

Do I see other hands up?

Ms. Damoff.

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Oakville North—Burlington, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

I believe right now we have Mr. MacGregor's amendment on the floor, and I'd like to amend his amendment. I'm assuming everyone has the amendment from Mr. MacGregor, so I'm just going to read the changes that would be made.

After the words “subject to availability of witnesses,” it would read “schedule a meeting”, as opposed to “schedule any meetings”; remove the word “required”; after the words “Ottawa Police Service”, add the words “the week of February 21, 2022, or as soon as possible thereafter should any witnesses not be available that week”; and then remove the words “on either Wednesday, February 23 or Thursday, February 24”.

I'd like to speak to that, if I could. Changing it to “the week of February 21”, gives the chair the flexibility to ask these people, who are right now in the middle of an emergency, to come. Instead of being very specific on the dates, this would recognize that the committee wishes to have these witnesses come during a constituency week, which is not the norm.

As we all know, we've already passed a motion to have these witnesses appear, which the Liberals supported; we just didn't support the timing of that. However, I think we need to be able to give the chair flexibility. The reason for adding the words “as soon as possible thereafter should any witnesses not be available that week” is that it would still honour the spirit of the motion that Mr. MacGregor put forward that these witnesses appear as soon as possible.

I also think changing it to “a meeting” is sufficient, and should anyone not be able to appear next week, we would still be able to call them as soon as possible. If you recall, Mr. MacGregor's motion, which passed, asked for witnesses to come as soon as possible.

I think we all have confidence in our chair that he understands the motion and will fulfill the wishes of this committee. I think this just gives him the flexibility and also allows all of these folks—the RCMP, the OPP and the Ottawa Police Service—right now who are dealing with an emergency in our country. We have, just today, started debate on the motion to implement the Emergencies Act. It's extremely important that we build flexibility into this motion.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jim Carr]

Thank you.

Ms. Dancho, I see your hand up.

[Raquel Dancho, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I appreciate Ms. Damoff's remarks. It is true that it is not usual to have an emergency meeting, but many committees call emergency meetings. In fact, this committee right here called an emergency meeting—

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Oakville North—Burlington, ON]

On a point of order, Chair, this does not call for an emergency meeting.

[Raquel Dancho, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

May I continue, Mr. Chair?

[The Chair, Liberal, Jim Carr]

Go ahead, Ms. Dancho.

[Raquel Dancho, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

What I find interesting is that the Bloc initiated the study we have now and brought forward the committee much earlier than we were going to be meeting because of the serious situation of gun violence in Montreal. Now we have an unprecedented situation where the government has invoked emergency powers that have never been used before. It's a very serious matter and the Liberal government has argued they need these emergency powers because all existing laws and authority were not enough for them.

The purpose of Mr. MacGregor's NDP motion for this meeting was to get some answers as to why the existing powers and authorities of this country so failed that we needed to invoke emergency powers. At least, that's the argument that we're hearing from the Liberal government for invoking these unprecedented powers.

I cannot impress on committee members enough the critical and historic importance of getting these answers. Right now, we are debating this emergency power in the House of Commons and it will go around the clock, essentially, until Monday. That's how critical and important this is.

The amendment to the amendment, which Ms. Damoff just proposed seems to provide something along the line of what they said on Tuesday. My interpretation is that it's to provide an out so that these witnesses don't have to come and answer to the public at the public safety committee of Canada. I think it is critical that those witnesses come next week and answer as we continue to debate this historic and unprecedented power move by the Liberal government.

It is critical that we hear from these witnesses as soon as possible. I would like to hear from them today, in fact. I think all Canadians would like to hear answers for why the authorities in this country and the existing laws in this country were, as the Liberals have argued, not enough for them and they needed to invoke unprecedented emergency powers.

I'll be voting against this amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jim Carr]

Mr. Chiang, I see your hand is up.

You have the floor.

[Paul Chiang, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

This is an emergency and it's a public safety emergency. I don't think it's proper to have this motion now during this emergency. All the emergency services—the RCMP, the OPP, and the Ottawa Police Service—are engaged in this emergency that is going on in our country.

I believe we should hold off until this thing is over or whenever it is possible to get it done.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jim Carr]

Mr. McKinnon, I see your hand is up.

[Ron McKinnon, Liberal, Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I will support both amendments. However, I do feel that this motion itself is unnecessary.

Part and parcel of calling the emergency measures into effect is that there is a legislative requirement for a committee of parliamentarians to be struck to investigate precisely the rationale behind the call, whether there is in fact a need for it and so on.

This is going to be that committee's direct responsibility and purview. I don't see any reason why we should be spending time on this committee for something that is going to be done at great length in due course.

I think it does a grave disservice to our witnesses who are here to speak to us about this study at hand, which has to do with gun violence, guns and gangs, and so forth. They've prepared for it and we should have an opportunity to hear their testimony and their suggestions on how we can move forward on this very important issue.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jim Carr]

Mr. Lemire, I see your hand up.

Please go ahead.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to submit a thought to the committee. Obviously, our committee meetings are being held in a hybrid format, so it's possible for parliamentarians to attend virtually, but not all technical support staff can do that. Therefore, I want to make sure that when the time comes to issue invitations to appear, the safety of House staff at these meetings is taken into account. Obviously, these meetings are urgent and must be held next week.

With that in mind, I would ask that we reread the subamendment, so that we can clearly agree on the language.

Could we have a written version of Ms. Damoff's proposed subamendment so that we can debate it?

[The Chair, Liberal, Jim Carr]

Thank you.

Mr. Zuberi, I see your hand up.

[Sameer Zuberi, Liberal, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

Mr. Chair, I would like to echo some of what's already been said about the Emergencies Act. There is clearly a very robust mechanism for review very soon after the act is no longer in force. With what we heard from one of our colleagues on this committee, Mr. Chiang, who was a police officer, and with my military background, I can imagine that when policing agencies are in the midst of an operation, it's not helpful for us as politicians to jump in and try to direct police forces on the ground that are involved in very serious and sensitive operations.

I think it is wholly appropriate, after these operations are conducted and concluded, that we have a review and that we examine what happened, why things happened as they did and why these trucks came to Ottawa and rolled in without the police stopping them beforehand. Those are very legitimate questions. However, we're in the midst of an operation right now. Police are doing their job. They're in uniform. I parked in the parliamentary precinct and had to go through two checkpoints. As I walked up the Hill, I was ID'd, and as I entered West Block, I was ID'd twice more. If we are going to ask these managers of the police and those who are directing these operations to come in, then the operations happening on the ground in real time will not be as effective.

My very strong suggestion to all of us on this committee is to let the police and agencies do their work on the ground at this moment in time, and we can grill them right after. That is our job. However, to grill them in the midst of this operation, I would suggest, is not helpful and would detract from their effectiveness, would make this more complicated and would be a harm to what's happening on the ground right now.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jim Carr]

Thank you.

Mr. Noormohamed, I see your hand is up. Go ahead.

[Taleeb Noormohamed, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Like everyone on this committee, like all Canadians, I'd like to know why trucks were allowed to roll into the centre of Ottawa and hold the entire city hostage. I'd like to know why supplies could be brought in without any restriction. I'd like to understand why the Ottawa Police Service didn't do more. I'd like to understand why members of the official opposition thought this was perfectly acceptable and, in fact, chose to spend time with the very people who held the city hostage. All Canadians would like to know that. I would like to know that.

Like Mr. Zuberi and Mr. Chiang, I've had the benefit of working in the public safety world. I spent time in the department and I've spent time with officials whom I know are working hard to try to figure this out, including from the RCMP, from CSIS and from the CBSA. This is not the time to be asking them to drop the important work they should be doing to try to keep Canadians safe: clearing these blockades and moving these domestic terrorists out of the places where they are holding Canadians hostage. Certainly, afterwards we can talk. We should be taking all the time, effort and energy required to listen, to hear and to ask very, very difficult questions.

I recognize there may be folks who don't like the way this is somehow characterizing a small group of people who certainly do not reflect the vast majority of truckers in this country and do not reflect the very good people in this country who don't agree with what is going on in Ottawa. Unfortunately, a small group of miscreants has taken over the entire narrative of peaceful debate and peaceful protest in this country.

We have to ask difficult questions of the police services; that is our job. However, the time to do it is not during an active operation.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jim Carr]

Go ahead, Mr. Lemire.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

I would really like us to reread the subamendment. There seems to be some confusion, so I want to make sure we agree on the language we're debating right now.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jim Carr]

We will do that before the vote is called, but I think we should ask those who have comments to make them now. Then, before the vote is called, I will ask the clerk to be very clear on what we're voting for.

Mr. MacGregor, go ahead.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Thank you very much, Chair.

I'm going to try to play my role in the committee of making peace between the Liberals and Conservatives here. First of all, while I disagree with the Conservatives on the necessity of the use of the Emergencies Act, I do agree with them that there are questions, serious questions, that this committee needs answers to regarding the last two and a half weeks.

I don't believe that officials using an hour of their time to appear before our committee, especially with Zoom technology, will in any way impact the day-to-day ground operations going on in Ottawa. They have deputies. They have commanders in the field to take care of that. They are very capable and professional organizations. But I do believe sincerely that, as per the wording of the motion that this committee adopted earlier this week, we do need to have answers about the coordination of various law enforcement agencies, the intelligence and all of the failures—let's be clear here, the failures—that led to the situation we now find ourselves in where the Emergencies Act is necessary.

Mr. Chair, I'll end by saying that I am open to supporting the subamendment to my amendment to Ms. Dancho's motion, but I guess I want some clarification from you or the clerk as per the original motion. When the clerk reads, “as soon as possible”, what does that mean in a technical sense? It's my understanding that the clerk has now been authorized to schedule these meetings. He's probably working to get them done as soon as possible. Therefore, is the debate we're having today a moot point? I'd just like some clarification from the clerk on whether we've had any responses for next week, etc.

I'll leave it there, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jim Carr]

Okay.

Colleagues, I'm looking at the time. It seems that this debate is going to go on for a few minutes longer, which will take us close to the top of the hour. If members of the committee agree, I think it might be courteous for me to thank the witnesses in this first hour for their testimony. This is just the way committees can operate.

With your concurrence, I think the witnesses from this first hour should be free to go.

Do I have consensus on that point?

[Ron McKinnon, Liberal, Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, BC]

I have a point of order, please.