Public Safety Committee on Aug. 17th, 2026

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to begin by congratulating you on your efforts in French. It was amazing. We can see that the courses are bearing fruit.

The issue is clearly also important. It's a very sensitive one. Canada's international security reputation is at stake. Of course, we can ask questions about the processes and the shortcomings, and it is essential to do so. That is why the Bloc Québécois supported the request for a meeting made pursuant to Standing Order 106(4).

We also agree with the Liberal amendment proposing to limit the number of meetings to three. I think that's appropriate. However, one thing seems important, and Mr. Housefather mentioned it, as well, and that's the appearance of the Minister of Public Safety. I wouldn't remove that from the motion. Perhaps it needs to be done through a subamendment, but we would keep item i. so that the Minister of Public Safety would appear.

As for the timeline, the meetings can be held in September, but committee business must not be delayed. In particular, we have two important reports, including one on small ports, which is very important to Mrs. DeBellefeuille. It would be important for those reports to be adopted very quickly once the session resumes.

So the Bloc Québécois is not opposed to starting earlier, before the House resumes. However, what's important is to have three meetings and to be able to put questions to the Minister of Public Safety.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Frank Caputo]

Thank you for your comments, Mr. Lemire.

Mr. Lloyd, you have the floor.

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Parkland, AB]

Thank you, and I thank my fellow members for their interventions.

I would like to move a subamendment to this, so that we return to the language that the Minister of Public Safety will be in attendance and then we also reintroduce the language of “any other witnesses deemed appropriate by the committee”. Instead of “and that this study begin within 10 calendar days following the adoption of this motion”, we would say, “and that this study begin on a priority basis on the return of the House”.

I think those amendments cover what Conservatives would like to see. Obviously, I would have liked to see six meetings on this, and I would have liked to see the committee start this business urgently, as this is a live issue that we're dealing with right now. As my colleague from the Bloc said, we also have a number of very important reports that we're dealing with in the fall. Time is very limited and very important at this committee, and I wouldn't want Canadians to believe that this committee doesn't take this national security issue very seriously and is not willing to spend any extra time on it before the House comes back in late September. However, given the political reality we're in today, I'll be moving that subamendment.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Frank Caputo]

Thank you very much, Mr. Lloyd.

There has been a great deal of collaboration between the parties. My understanding is that this has been agreed to.

(Subamendment agreed to)

We will resume debate on the main amendment.

Mr. Ramsey, did you have your hand up to intervene on the amendment, as amended? Go ahead, please.

[Jacques Ramsay, Liberal, La Prairie—Atateken, QC]

I mainly want to confirm what was just said. I think that, to the extent that the study provides for a review of Canada's security screening processes, it must be done with some urgency. I would have had reservations if the study was meant to examine the specific case mentioned in the preamble, since the findings of the investigation into that case are not currently available, and it may have seemed premature to want to study something whose main findings are unknown.

However, insofar as we want to instead examine Canada's security screening processes, I think I agree with the subamendment and the amendment. I am confident that the chair, the vice-chairs and the other members of the committee will be able to agree on an accelerated schedule.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Frank Caputo]

Thank you, Mr. Ramsay.

Are there any other interventions on the amendments?

My sense is that we have consensus on the amendments. Is that accurate? I assume we all endorse this.

(Amendment as amended agreed to)

Okay. Let's move on to the motion as amended.

Does anybody need me to read the motion, as amended, into the record?

[Sima Acan, Liberal, Oakville West, ON]

Yes, please.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Frank Caputo]

Okay. I will do that in English. If anybody needs anything further or any further time, please let us know.

The motion, as amended, is as follows:

That, given that:

(1) in July 2026, Biwei Zhang, a Canadian national and former employee of the Canadian federal government, was arrested by Belgian authorities and accused of espionage after her work as an intern at NATO's military headquarters in Belgium; and

(2) these allegations raise serious questions regarding how an individual now accused of espionage was able to obtain access to one of Canada's most important military alliances and regarding the security screening, information-sharing and monitoring processes that were in place;

the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security undertake a study to examine Canada's security screening processes; that the study include three meetings; that the committee invite the Minister of Public Safety to appear; that this study begin on a priority basis and that the committee report its findings and recommendations to the House.

Mr. Lloyd, I believe there was something in there that caught your eye. It caught my eye as well.

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Parkland, AB]

Yes, it's “any other witnesses that the committee deem....”

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Frank Caputo]

Okay, so we will be adding that in after “priority basis”.

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Parkland, AB]

No, it's before.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Frank Caputo]

Is it before “priority basis”?

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Parkland, AB]

It's after “the Minister of Public Safety”.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Frank Caputo]

Okay. I'm sorry. It's “and any other witnesses....”

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Parkland, AB]

It's as the original motion worded it.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Frank Caputo]

All right. There are no issues with that, I take it.

Is there any further debate on the motion as amended, as I just read it?

No. Okay, I think we have consensus around the table. Is that accurate?

(Motion as amended agreed to)

Thank you very much for your co‑operation.

To the MPs, it's really nice to see. It makes my job filling in as vice-chair very easy.

I want to thank the support staff as well, the translators and the clerks. Thank you very much for being here.

With that, I will adjourn the meeting.