Public Safety Committee on Feb. 15th, 2024

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

While I appreciate the need for a little bit of extra time, I would hate to lose both meetings in our next week here. We have the 26th and 29th. If we want to start auto theft on the 26th, that's fine—and allow for amendments—but I wouldn't suggest that we lose the 28th as well. We need to keep in mind that there is only one sitting week in March, and one of those meetings we have already confirmed—the 21st—is with the minister on his mandate.

That essentially leaves us with two meetings if we're looking at February 28 and March 18. As we have heard from testimony even today, the threat is incredibly real. Everybody has agreed that this bill is urgent.

I would agree with Mr. Julian that we would support having later sittings, but I would suggest that amendments be in by February 26. That would allow the start of clause-by-clause on February 28. We could still start auto theft on the 26th for that specific meeting.

That's a compromise in terms of extending amendment dates but not losing both meetings in February. I would also suggest extended sittings.

[The Chair, Liberal, Heath MacDonald]

Mr. Shipley.

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

Thank you.

There are a lot of discussions going on about different dates. I think we need to get it clarified just a little bit.

We're going to put off doing the amendments for an extra week. Then, when we come back on the Monday, we're going to start on auto theft. Is that what I'm hearing, Ms. O'Connell? Then the Thursday of that week we will be into what? I'm sorry. Is it clause-by-clause?

Proceeding after that, then, would we go every other meeting, like we talked about, doing auto theft.

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

That motion wasn't carried. I think we finish clause-by-clause as we would only have two sittings. I would take Mr. Julian's point that we extend the two days that we have. Then, once clause-by-clause is finished, we would continue on auto theft.

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

Thank you for that.

The only issue is that on some of those days.... Some of our members do sit on more than one committee, and they would have other committee work those nights, so I don't know if that would fall into—

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

What I find rather interesting is that this has been on the books since June 2022, so we're 20 months into this, and now we want to rush through a process that we have heard many witnesses.... We also have significant recommendations to make in clause-by-clause to go through and fix this, and it's the responsibility of this committee to do that.

I don't know why there is the rush of an extra day or week or two to go through this. I don't support the extra length of meetings. We have other responsibilities as well, so I definitely don't support the need to sit extra.

I think we should get at the study on auto. When we're done with our recommendations and have them submitted, then we can go back and work on the clause-by-clause of Bill C-26. That, for sure, is going to take a lot longer than a couple of meetings of extended time.

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

Security isn't that important.

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

You guys have sat on it since June 2022.

[The Chair, Liberal, Heath MacDonald]

Mr. McKinnon.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I certainly agree with Ms. O'Connell, and I support the extended sittings when we get to it.

With regard to Mr. Motz's concern that this bill has been tabled since June 2022, we should remember that it came to this committee in March 2023. Therefore, we have had it for just about a year, so any delay on this bill is really on us, not on the government.

It's a very important bill. We need to get going on it. That's why the extended sittings are critically important. It's not a matter of just delaying another week because we're going to lose most of March.

I think that once we start this bill, clause-by-clause, we should do it as soon as we can in keeping with Ms. O'Connell's suggestion. We need to take every meeting that we can to proceed with it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Heath MacDonald]

Mr. Julian, go ahead, please.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I will say, in answer to Mr. Motz's comments about having other things to do, that every NDP MP—and I think it's the same with the Bloc—has four hats they have to wear. If we can find time to come here, I think Conservatives should be able to as well.

If what I'm hearing from my Conservative colleagues is that they are going to try to slow down or block the bill, that is different from our having good faith on all sides to actually proceed through. For example, if we have a meeting from 3:30 to midnight on Monday, when we come back that second week, we should actually be able to make real progress if there's good faith on all sides to improve the bill of course. But there is a difference between having an extended hearing with a filibuster and having an extended hearing at which we are systematically working through amendments.

We all agree that this bill has to be improved. I think in good faith we can do that the second week back. That would allow the first week back to be focused on auto theft. If we have agreement to have extended hearings during that second week, I don't think any party would object to doing two hearings on auto theft the week after next. But if we don't have agreement around having extended hearings in that second week, then I think the first week will become more problematic.

If we're all working together to get this bill improved and through committee and back to the House, then I think we have a game plan: two meetings on auto theft the week after next, a deadline for amendments the following week, and then when we come back we will have extended hearings, including potentially an extra meeting on Tuesday night to allow us to work through the amendments.

[The Chair, Liberal, Heath MacDonald]

Thank you.

Madam Michaud, go ahead, please.

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

Thank you.

I would like us to recap our discussion on dates.

I don't think that it's a bad idea to extend meeting hours. That said, sitting until midnight seems a bit like a closure procedure.

I agree that we could do more over four or five hours, such as Monday evening from 4:30 p.m. to 8:30 p.m. or 9:30 p.m. I don't see any issue with that.

Mr. Chair, please confirm that we can set the date for submitting amendments for February 26, and that the February 26 meeting will focus on car theft.

At the meeting on Thursday, February 29, we would begin the study of Bill C‑26. By then, the clerk would have already sent us the amendments proposed by the other parties, because we need to take time to study these amendments.

Since it will be on Thursday morning, we can't really extend the meeting. That brings us two weeks later, to Monday, March 18. I imagine that this meeting would be extended a bit. On Thursday, we would meet with Mr. LeBlanc.

We would continue the study of Bill C‑26 on April 8.

Is that right, Mr. Chair?

[The Chair, Liberal, Heath MacDonald]

Thank you.

I will just note that the clerk has mentioned to me that on February 26 the amendments would have to be in by noon.

Mr. Shipley, go ahead, please.

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

Thank you, Chair.

There have been a lot of dates.

Mr. Julian, I think you had a good solution. I hope this is what you said. If not, correct me, please.

When we return, the first week back we would do auto theft on the Monday and the Thursday, and then when we return after that we could do the extended sittings. I think we can agree to that.

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

It think it's a quid pro quo. If there is agreement to have extended hearings to go through the amendments on Monday and potentially Tuesday when we get back, then I think everyone would be in agreement with having auto theft for those two days.

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

Chair, I'm sorry, but just to sort of recap, it's a riding week next week. The first week back both meetings would be on auto theft, and then when we returned after that we would do extended sittings for Bill C-26. Is that what I'm hearing, Mr. Julian?

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

That's what I'm proposing.

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

I think that's a good compromise. We would agree with that, Mr. Julian.

[An hon. member]

That's with the understanding that on the Monday that we're back—

[The Chair, Liberal, Heath MacDonald]

Ms. O'Connell, go ahead, please.

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

Thank you.

Mr. Chair, I recognize the fact that there also needs to be time to review amendments, but if there are available hours even in that February 26 week, why wouldn't we ask for additional hours? We could still do auto theft in our regular meetings, but ask for additional hours if they were available.

We can do two things at once, but we'll leave it with you to figure out.

[The Chair, Liberal, Heath MacDonald]

Okay. As the chair, I will do my magic.

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

I'm somewhat concerned about your magic.