Evidence of meeting #9 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 firearms.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Liberal
Ron McKinnon Liberal Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, BC
I would agree with that, except I would invite the chair to invite the witnesses to make a more fulsome submission in writing that they can share with the committee to make up for the fact that they weren't able to testify today.
I absolutely want to thank them both for being here today and regret that we were unable to hear directly from them further, but would look forward very eagerly to any written submissions that they might want to offer.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Jim Carr
Yes. I think that's a very good idea. I would invite them to do just that.
On the committee's behalf, I would like to thank them for appearing. At least we were able to hear their first opening remarks. It's unfortunate that the events didn't allow for a fuller discussion.
Thank you very much, witnesses. We appreciate your involvement here today.
May I ask members of the committee to put their hands down if they've already spoken and don't want to speak again? Otherwise, it's difficult to know what the order might be.
Ms. Damoff, your hand has been up for a while. Go ahead.
Liberal
Pam Damoff Liberal Oakville North—Burlington, ON
Thank you very much, Chair, and just to Mr. MacGregor's point, I appreciate his trying to balance the red and the blue. I think we all appreciate that. I just want to be clear. My amendment—which is what we are supposed to be debating right now, rather than the full amendment—changes only the dates to the week of February 21 so that the chair is not restricted to two days next week. So it's still open to meeting next week, and I just want to clarify that this is not an emergency meeting. This motion is not being brought under Standing Order 106(4). It is a motion that will require the support of the committee.
So the amendment I brought forward was the week of February 21, requiring us to sit in a constituency week. I added to that “as soon as possible thereafter should any witnesses not be available that week”, specifically because none of us can see the future. None of us could foretell that the Ambassador Bridge was suddenly going to be blocked. None of us could have foretold that Ottawa would be under siege now for what has been three weeks.
We can't tell what will happen next week, and I think we need to give flexibility and honour Mr. MacGregor's initial amendment here, which said “as soon as possible”, that if, for some reason, any of these witnesses is unable to appear next week when it's scheduled, that they will appear as per Mr. MacGregor's initial motion which was “as soon as possible”. I think the committee has been very clear to the clerk and the chair that the committee wants this to happen sooner rather than later. I think that's been conveyed very clearly.
I don't think there's any reason to question the integrity of the chair or the clerk about it not happening as soon as possible, but none of us can know what will happen next week. If we schedule a meeting on Thursday next week and something happens.... If we need to and we want to hear from these folks and if we say they can appear on only one day, that just quashes what was originally in Mr. MacGregor's amendment, because then we'd have to bring a new one forward.
So there was no nefarious reason for adding “as soon as possible thereafter”. It was to recognize that we're in an emergency right now. We can't anticipate what's going to happen in the future. We need to give the chair flexibility, and we need to honour the original motion, which was to hear from these folks.
We're starting to debate on the main motion, but I think in fairness to the chair and the clerk with regard to what we want to do, we need to give them flexibility next week to see when the best day for these folks to appear would be, and if something happens, then they will appear as soon as possible thereafter.
That's the intent of the amendment to Mr. MacGregor's amendment, so I really hope that colleagues will be able to support this and that we can move on to debate the rest of the motion.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Jim Carr
Thank you.
Ms. Dancho, I saw your hand up but you've disappeared from my screen. Are you still there?
Conservative
Raquel Dancho Conservative Kildonan—St. Paul, MB
Mr. Chair, I'll save my comments for the rest of the debate. Thanks.
The Clerk
Mr. Chair, I'm sorry. We have Mr. Van Popta in the room, and he would like to speak.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Jim Carr
Okay, Mr. Van Popta, go ahead. I can't see the hands up in the room, so I'll have to rely on the clerk as I have just done. Thank you.
Mr. Van Popta.
Conservative
Tako Van Popta Conservative Langley—Aldergrove, BC
Good. Thank you, Chair.
Thank you, Clerk, for alerting the chair to this.
I'm going to speak against Ms. Damoff's amendment, only because I think it takes away from the urgency of our having to have these meetings now. If it is “as soon as possible”, then it may end up being next week or the week after or the week after that, and, yes, that does not at all take away from the integrity of our clerk and our chair to make this happen ASAP but the point is that this is urgent. We need to do it now. The study will not be to look into the current operations but to come to a better understanding of how we got to this point in the first place, where the government feels that it needs to take upon itself this extraordinary power available under the Emergencies Act.
Also, we, committee members, have to plan our week as well and so I think it's very important for us to stick with the determined dates and make the meeting happen.
For those who are saying, well, you know, the officials, law enforcement people, may not have time to come to the committee, we're talking about one hour, and one of the earlier speakers also made the point that with Zoom technology it's just so much more readily accessible. Furthermore, I would note that the police authorities have daily briefings, so they certainly have the time to do that, to reach out to the public to keep them informed. Surely they have time to come before the public safety committee and explain to us what is going on.
Thank you very much.
Liberal
Ron McKinnon Liberal Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I want to respond to Mr. Van Popta. The whole question about how we got to this point cannot do anything but talk about operational issues that are under way now, issues that have been under way for the last three weeks, issues that pertain to a clearly ongoing situation.
I think it's going to be difficult for law enforcement to speak to ongoing operations. I think it will be difficult for them to give us proper answers that might interfere with what they're doing going forward.
I don't think it's a matter so much as an hour of their time—although it never is going to be an hour of their time. It's always an hour of their time plus some time for their staff and them to prepare, and so on and so forth.
The question is their time needs to be better spent elsewhere. We will be dealing with this issue very strenuously as we go forward with a parliamentary committee devoted specifically to this. After we have a little bit of perspective in a day or two, or a week or two, we will be able to evaluate how we got to this point, what worked and what didn't in a much more fulsome way.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Jim Carr
Thank you. I don't see any other hands up.
Clerk, remind us of the subamendment. We'll vote on the subamendment, then the amendment and then the motion.
Please read to members of the committee the subamendment that will now be called to a vote.
The Clerk
I'll try my best, Mr. Chair.
It reads, “That, pursuant to the motion adopted on February 11, 2022, that the committee request that the Chair, subject to availability of witnesses, schedule a meeting to hear from the Minister of Public Safety, officials, as well as, as well as Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA), the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP), the Ontario Provincial Police and the Ottawa Police Service the week of February 21, or as soon as possible thereafter should any witnesses not be available that week.”
Liberal
Pam Damoff Liberal Oakville North—Burlington, ON
On a point order, Chair, it's correct, except that the clerk read the entire motion, which is helpful for clarity, but my amendment is strictly to change the word “any” to “a”, removing the word “required”, and then adding the words “the week of February 21, or as soon as possible thereafter should any witnesses not be available that week.” It is then removing “on either Wednesday February 23 or Thursday, February 24”.
Is that clear for Monsieur Lemire? I know you had questions, through you, Chair.
Conservative
Philip Lawrence Conservative Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON
On the motion, I'm seeking clarity. When the motion says, “should any witnesses not be available”, does it then get pushed back next week, or is it just that one particular witness that will get pushed back, and then we'll have a separate meeting after that?
Liberal
Pam Damoff Liberal Oakville North—Burlington, ON
My intent was that it would only be the witnesses that were not available. If my Conservative friend feels we need to change that.... But the intent was that if four of the five are available, they come next week. If the fifth is not available, then they come separately.
If you want to change that accordingly, that's fine.
Conservative
Philip Lawrence Conservative Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON
No, that's fine. We'll definitely rely on the honour of the member.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Jim Carr
Okay, are we ready, then, to call the question on the subamendment? Are members of the committee comfortable that what is in front of them is clear and well understood?