Public Safety Committee on May 23rd, 2024

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

That's not a point of order, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Heath MacDonald]

Thank you, Ms. O'Connell.

Mr. Genuis, do you have a point of order?

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

No. I have the floor, though, so I'll just continue, I suppose.

[The Chair, Liberal, Heath MacDonald]

Well, you were talking, so I thought you—

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

I'm sorry, Mr. Chair. I was just maybe clarifying for Ms. O'Connell that typically when someone raises a point of order, it relates to matters of order, not their opinions about what should or shouldn't happen.

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

[Inaudible—Editor]

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

I will just say that, in terms of the moving of dilatory motions, the practice, the rule, is that if there are intervening activities that have occurred that could materially impact the outcome, then a motion may be moved.

I thought I presented very persuasive arguments about the value of hearing from ministers. I thought it was legitimate, and clearly you thought so, as well, to allow us to move the motion again.

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

[Inaudible—Editor]

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Ms. O'Connell is talking fairly loudly, which I don't normally object to, but since she vociferously objected to my doing it, I think it's sort of worth acknowledging.

Anyway, Mr. Chair, as the committee has seen, we have repeatedly moved for us to be able to hear from the ministers. We've put forward motions to proceed to hearing from the ministers. We've proposed amendments to allow ministers to appear for more time. It's clear that the Liberals do not want to allow the ministers to appear. They and their coalition partners have repeatedly blocked our attempts to proceed to hearing from the ministers on these important matters, and that's a big problem.

I hope that we can adopt the subcommittee report. I hope that we can adopt that through some negotiations among parties that recognize the changes that need to be made. Frankly, the original draft of the subcommittee report was, clearly, wildly unacceptable. It did not provide for the completion of important matters that this committee has already agreed to.

There are a number of other changes that we proposed as part of this amendment. We proposed to remove the reference to drafting a report on the auto theft issue for May 30. We believe, instead, that additional meetings should be held on the auto theft study.

Then we amended point five. Point five is with regard to the statutory review of the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians. It's a very important review required by law, and it has not occurred. I believe that other parties were highlighting the importance of this issue.

Then the proposal for a study in relation to the statutory review was reduced to merely a briefing on the statutory review, which is not consistent with, I think, our statutory obligations. The amendment we proposed to the subcommittee report was:

That the committee undertake the statutory review of the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians Act, as required by law, with a goal of completing that review before the end of 2024.

This corresponds to a legislated obligation to complete a statutory review, and that statutory review relates to a critical matter of national security. It's in a context in which we know about the significant issues of foreign interference, which may well be back before this committee soon in the form of a study on the government's proposed legislation on this. There is a significant and important relationship between the work of NSICOP and the problem of foreign interference. In many past NSICOP reports, alarm bells have been rung in the public versions of those reports, and I can only assume they have been rung even more forcefully in the private versions of those reports. Alarm bells have been rung in relation to the problem of foreign interference. Therefore, there is, I think, an important connection between a review of the work of NSICOP and understanding how we can do better on the issue of foreign interference.

The new proposed item six really is at the heart of what Conservatives are proposing in relation to changes to the subcommittee report. What we are proposing, as the new item six states, is:

That the draft report on the transfer of Paul Bernardo be immediately distributed to committee members and that, notwithstanding any other items mentioned, with the exception of testimony by ministers, the committee not hold any other hearings or present any reports to the House until the committee has completed and presented its report to the House on the Bernardo prison transfer.

I'll just say, in general, with respect to this amendment and the issues raised by the subcommittee report, Conservatives are prepared to discuss and negotiate the various provisions. We're proposing a number of additional meetings on the auto theft study. We're proposing hearings on a number of other subjects. We are prepared to negotiate all of those items and to try to come to a consensus with respect to the agenda of the committee going forward.

However, a fundamental point for us is that the hearing on the Bernardo transfer lead to a report; that the report, which has already been drafted, be distributed; and that members complete the work on that report.

The normal process through which parliamentary committees operate is that they conduct studies on legislation or on other important public issues of the day. When those studies are complete, they provide drafting instructions to analysts. Those analysts prepare a report that is considered by committee, which makes amendments and adds recommendations, etc., and is then adopted and reported to the House.

This reflects a core principle of how our parliamentary system is supposed to work: that parliamentary committees exist to facilitate the detailed study of specific public issues and to allow committee members to become experts on specific policy areas and then use their expertise to inform Parliament as a whole. The function of informing the House on the activities of parliamentary committees is obviously central to what they do. Parliamentary committees aren't just think tanks somewhere over here. They are creatures of Parliament with a reporting function to Parliament.

When studies are completed, typically, pursuant to Standing Order 109, the committee would request that the government provide a written response. The opportunity is then for the government to review the report, identify areas where they disagree, agree or take note, and provide some explanation about their policy in that respect.

There's also an opportunity for concurrence, that is, for a debate in the House whereby members of Parliament can pronounce themselves in general on whether they agree with the conclusions of the report or not. It's clearly part of the function of committees to conduct hearings, and that gives people opportunities to speak and brings greater attention and focus to a particular subject.

However, the committee's work should not happen in a vacuum, isolated from the activities of Parliament. Those hearings should be a means by which the committee develops its expertise, comes up with specific recommendations and informs the House about the results.

When the committee undertakes a study and when witnesses are called, I think there's a reasonable expectation, at least among those who are informed about the mechanics of this process, that their testimony will contribute to the deliberations of Parliament more broadly. Sometimes it's a personal sacrifice of time or because the committee is asking them to delve into matters that are very personal or difficult to talk about. Witnesses who choose to appear are making those sacrifices likely with a goal in mind: The challenges and the sacrifices associated with testifying are worth it insofar as they then create the opportunity for policy changes to be driven through the committee's process.

That's just the normal thing. It's not an original proposition that maybe committees should provide reports on things that they study. That's the way every committee, in every room and on every policy issue, works, outside of some very narrow exceptions. The committees study issues and they prepare reports. Those reports go to the House, which then creates an obligation, if desired, for a government response and creates a potential opportunity for the House to debate and pronounce itself as a whole on those conclusions.

That is the committee process, and that was the spirit in which the committee undertook its work in the late fall on the Bernardo transfer.

It's just worth recalling that I was here at the public safety committee when we were pushing for this issue to be studied. The other parties then, as now, resisted any kind of discussion or engagement on the issue of the Bernardo prison transfer. We wanted to get to the bottom of what happened, why families weren't informed, etc. Liberals did not want that to happen. We had to persistently use a variety of different tools available to us to insist that the families of the victims be heard.

This was in a context where they were not properly informed at all about the prison transfer. As I recall, they were told the day of that the prison transfer was happening, when it was already effectively a fait accompli. The families of the victims did not have their day prior to the transfer, but we believe that they should be given their day in Parliament. That includes the opportunity to testify and then the subsequent opportunities for that testimony to drive substantive policy changes.

This is what we proposed with respect to the Bernardo prison transfer. Eventually, we were able to get those hearings to happen. There was an in camera meeting to discuss drafting instructions. I wasn't there.

[The Chair, Liberal, Heath MacDonald]

Could I have everybody just quiet down a little bit? If you're going to have a conversation, could you take it outside? We're having a problem hearing.

Thank you.

Continue.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Well, thank you, Chair. This is the first time I've been told to take it outside at a committee. I've felt that way at times, but I've never said it.

Chair, based on the conversations happening around the room and the intervening time that has taken place, I think there may be an appetite to let the ministers testify. I will propose that we proceed to hearing from the ministers.

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

I have a point of order.

That's out of order, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Heath MacDonald]

Thank you, Ms. O'Connell.

We'll continue to a vote, please.

Is it a recorded vote?

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

Yes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Heath MacDonald]

All right.

(Motion negatived: nays 7; yeas 4 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

Mr. Genuis.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

We have, again, repeatedly tried to give the ministers the opportunity to testify. I have for the third time explicitly proposed a motion asking that we proceed to hearing from the ministers. Three times in a row, all of the Liberal members, as well as their partners in the Bloc and the NDP, have voted against allowing the ministers to appear.

It's quite shocking that we would have two ministers here, that the agenda would say that ministers appear, but that Liberal members would move a motion to proceed to a different item to prevent the ministers from appearing, and that members would then repeatedly vote against the opportunity to hear from ministers.

Clearly, we have to address the subcommittee report. I'm very happy for us to debate the subcommittee report after the ministers...even later today. We could have debated it previously if there had been agreement to proceed to it. We can certainly debate it at the next meeting.

I am struck by, in particular, Ms. Michaud—who, as I recall, had proposed previously that this committee undertake a study of auto theft. She is now voting with the Liberals to deny herself the opportunity to ask questions to the ministers.

Ms. O'Connell may want to add herself to the speaking list. I think she's—

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

I'm just saying it's interesting how you go after the two women on the committee. That's an interesting point.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Are we allowing crosstalk, Chair, or not?

I think my record will show that when ministers or other members have raised things, I've challenged them as well. Actually, that's probably not even worth dignifying with a response.

However, to the point about the issues of motor vehicle theft, I want to share some statistics about the dramatic increase in vehicle thefts that have occurred under this government.

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

On a point of order, vehicle thefts are not relevant to the matter in question. I urge Mr. Genuis to stick to the matter in question.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. McKinnon, I'm happy to respond to you. Unfortunately, your point of order seems to reveal that you haven't read the amendment we're discussing. The amendment says, in additional proposed paragraph 8, “That the committee hold 4 additional meetings as part of its auto theft study before the end of June.” We might have to shift those timelines, given how close we are to the end of June. Nonetheless, the point is that the proposed amendment deals explicitly with the issue of auto theft, so it is curious for you to say that the issue of auto theft has no relevance to the amendment, when the amendment includes a proposal for additional meetings precisely on the issue of auto theft.

I think Mr. McKinnon has revealed something that doesn't entirely surprise me, which is that he and perhaps other members of this committee have not even familiarized themselves with the amendment we're talking about.

Of course, they would have had weeks to do so, because we moved this amendment a number of weeks ago. It's on the public record, and it is regarding the agenda of the committee. If we're going to have a discussion about it, members should have read it. On the other hand, I sympathize with members like Mr. McKinnon, who did not read the amendment and weren't prepared for this discussion today, because this wasn't what was on the agenda.

[The Chair, Liberal, Heath MacDonald]

Mr. Genuis, I think that's enough debating with Mr. McKinnon. Can we get back to your amendment, please? Thank you.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Okay.

Ms. O'Connell was concerned that I was challenging only the—

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

He means “personal attacks”.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

—record and decisions of female members of the committee. Mr. McKinnon did say some things that were clearly problematic, so I hope she appreciates that I've demonstrated that I'm happy to hold Liberals of all types accountable.

I'll go on to the issue I was discussing before I was interrupted by the point of order from the member who....

For the benefit of Mr. McKinnon and other members, I wonder if the clerk can distribute the amendment, just so we don't have this kind of confusion going forward.

These are the statistics in terms of the rise of auto theft. It's why Canadians are gravely concerned about it and why I think they are legitimately seeking answers from ministers on it.

There has been a 34.1% increase in auto thefts across Canada in the period from 2015 to 2022, which I assume is the latest point for which we have Statistics Canada numbers available. Based on what we're hearing anecdotally, I think members would expect that they may well have gone up substantially further since 2022.

There has been a particularly dramatic spike in certain regions of the country. There has been a 120% increase in auto thefts in New Brunswick, 190% in Moncton, 59% in Quebec, a 105.9% increase overall in Montreal, a 122.5% increase in Ontario and a 122% increase in the Ottawa-Gatineau area. This is staggering.

In the tenure of this NDP-Liberal government, there has been an over-200% increase in auto thefts in the greater Toronto area: 216.94% increases in auto theft. These are dramatic numbers. The government's own news release, in fact, says that in 2022, close to 10,000 vehicles—9,600 vehicles, approximately—were stolen in the Toronto area alone. According to the Canada Finance and Leasing Association, that represents a 300% increase since 2015.

This is why we think it is important to study the issue of auto theft. Notionally, members of other parties said they wanted to study the issue of auto theft, yet they have tried to block at every turn meaningful actions on this issue.

The government trumpeted the fact that they were going to have a summit. They had a meeting at which this was discussed. Mr. Rodriguez says it was a great summit.

I would actually love to hear more from him about what the government has done on this.

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Minister of Transport]

Next time you come—