Committee
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Add search criteria
Results: 1 - 60 of 21847
View Wayne Easter Profile
Lib. (PE)
Thank you. It's at the Charlottetown office. They may have it outside at the one in Summerside—I don't know—but the Charlottetown office is where I've been getting the complaints from anyway.
We do have a bit of committee business, but we'll release our witnesses.
Thank you very much. We've seen a lot of witnesses from CRA and especially Finance in recent weeks, so we thank you very much for coming to answer our questions. I wish you all the best. Have a good weekend when it comes around.
Now we turn to committee business. You have received the report of the subcommittee on agenda and procedure. I'll just read through it, and if there are any questions on it, somebody can move it.
We met on June 8 and recommended:1. That the committee meet for 2 hours on Thursday, June 10, 2021 and invite the Minister of National Revenue as well as senior officials from the Canada Revenue Agency and from the Department of Finance;
That's already done.
2. That the committee meet for 2 hours on Tuesday, June 15, 2021 and invite specialists and experts in the field related to tax evasion and that the committee meet for 2 hours on Thursday, June 17, 2021 and invite key stakeholders in relation to the tax evasion study;
The clerk has already sent out some invitations on one or both of those, but we're still short witnesses.
3. That the committee meet for 2 hours on Tuesday June 22, 2021 and invite the Minister of Finance and the Deputy Minister of Finance to appear in regards to tax policy commitments made at the G7 Finance Minister’s Meeting, as well as in regards to the monthly reports provided by the Department of Finance and others;
I expect that invitation has gone out.
4. That the Chair schedule a subcommittee meeting between June 17th and June 22nd, 2021;
We're working on that and we're not meeting with much success yet, but we'll have to try to find one somehow then or shortly after.
5. That, in relation to the committee's pre-budget consultations in advance of the 2022 budget: (a) the committee invite Canadians to share their recommendations in briefs of no longer than 2000 words, submitted through the committee's website, no later than Friday, August 6, 2020, at 11:59 p.m. EST; (b) this year's theme be—
We hadn't decided on one. In fact, we had quite a discussion, and I think Mr. Kelly mentioned maybe it would be left as “pre-budget consultations for 2022”.
(c) only one submission per individual or organization be accepted; (d) a succinct list of recommendations be included at the beginning of the written submissions; (e) all those who submit a written submission will be considered as having made a request to appear before the committee; (f) the clerk be allowed to publish submitted briefs, once they are translated in both official languages, on the Digital Binder Site of the committee; and (g) a news release be prepared by the analysts and the clerk, in consultation with the Chair, and be published on the committee's website and on social media to launch the process.
Does somebody want to move that and we can discuss it?
That's moved by Mr. Fast.
Is there any discussion?
View Annie Koutrakis Profile
Lib. (QC)
View Annie Koutrakis Profile
2021-06-10 17:18
Mr. Chair, on a point of order, I think we need to correct item number 5, because it says, “August 6, 2020”, and it should say, “2021”.
View Wayne Easter Profile
Lib. (PE)
That would be a fairly good point. We're a little past that. Good catch.
All right. I think we're agreed to that.
It's been moved. Is there any discussion? The only thing is that there is no theme. Pre-budget 2022, is that fine? I see heads nodding yes.
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Chair: Now we'll go to Mr. Julian's motion. You all have a copy, but I understand there have been some discussions between Mr. Julian and others and a consensus on some changes to the motion.
I'll let Mr. Julian explain that.
View Peter Julian Profile
NDP (BC)
Thanks very much, Mr. Chair.
My thanks to Mr. Sorbara, Mr. Kelly and Mr. Ste-Marie.
Hopefully we'll go through this consensus document quickly.
Mr. Sorbara has recommended three friendly amendments. I'm going to incorporate them into the motion, because I accept those friendly amendments.
The motion would read as follows:
That the committee request the production of all memos, emails, documents, notes or other records from the Department of Finance and the Canada Revenue Agency relating to the KPMG offshore tax scheme since November 1, 2015, as well as the production of a copy of all communications between the Department of Finance and the Canada Revenue Agency and KPMG, or its affiliates, relating to KPMG's offshore tax scheme since November 1, 2015; that all documents issued pursuant to this motion be filed by department and provided to the members of the committee as soon as possible given the current pandemic, but in any event, no later than Friday July 2, 2021.
What is struck is the “office of the Minister of Finance and the office of the Minister of National Revenue”. What remains is the “Department of Finance and the Canada Revenue Agency and KPMG”. The original date of June 18 has been changed to July 2.
I apologize for the poor reading. If you like, Mr. Chair, I can read it a second time more smoothly.
View Wayne Easter Profile
Lib. (PE)
Does anybody want to hear it again? It goes to the main sources, which are the departments and KPMG, and it changes a couple of dates. Is everybody okay with the reading?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Chair: Is there any further discussion?
Gabriel.
View Gabriel Ste-Marie Profile
BQ (QC)
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
With respect to the subcommittee report and the absence of the Minister of National Revenue, who was supposed to appear today, since we have few meetings left, I would like to know what my colleagues think about inviting her back. We could do so at the June 22 meeting, when the Minister of Finance is already scheduled to appear. Normally at the committee, ministers appear in the first hour and senior officials appear in the second hour.
Would it be possible for the Minister of Finance to appear for one hour and for the Minister of National Revenue to also appear for one hour to make up for her absence today?
View Wayne Easter Profile
Lib. (PE)
Before I get to that point—we'll get into that discussion in a minute—I believe there is general agreement on Mr. Julian's motion.
You've moved it, Mr. Julian. I will call the vote.
(Motion agreed to)
The Chair: On Mr. Ste-Marie's point on an invitation to the minister, is there any discussion on that?
View Pat Kelly Profile
CPC (AB)
I support Gabriel on that. I think that's reasonable. It would have been better for her to be here today, but we will take her on the 22nd, if that works better.
View Wayne Easter Profile
Lib. (PE)
What I'm hearing is that an invitation also be sent out, at a different hour from that of the Minister of Finance and officials.
View Pat Kelly Profile
CPC (AB)
View Wayne Easter Profile
Lib. (PE)
Yes, that's what I'm hearing.
The Chair: Hearing no opposition to that, then we will send that invitation as well.
With that, we have a hard stop at 5:30 your time, and we're ahead of the game for once.
Thank you, all.
The meeting is adjourned.
View Pam Damoff Profile
Lib. (ON)
Thanks, Chair.
I'm hoping we can deal with this quite quickly. I want to see if we can get unanimous consent for something.
Yesterday all parties in the House came together to condemn the attack on a Muslim family in London, Ontario, which killed three generations of one family. Last night leaders of all the parties were in my hometown of London to attend a vigil in their memory. They all spoke about working together and putting partisanship aside to deal with the issue of Islamophobia and hate. I'm trusting that we can do that today.
On May 5 we passed a motion to study ideologically motivated violent extremism. We've completed two meetings thus far. I have a motion, which I would ask for unanimous consent to deal with today, that would see us continue our study next week, on Monday, and add an extra day on Wednesday. I think it would be important for us to hear from the National Council of Canadian Muslims to talk about the rise of Islamophobia, as well as the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs to talk about the rise in anti-Semitism.
Chair, the clerk should have the motion in both official languages. It reads as follows: That, pursuant to the motion passed on May 5, 2001, the public safety committee continue its study on ideologically motivated violent extremism; that the meetings occur on June 14 and June 16, 2021; and that the committee invite the National Council of Canadian Muslims and the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs to appear as witnesses on June 16.
I'm hoping we can get unanimous consent for that and pass it quite quickly, Chair.
View John McKay Profile
Lib. (ON)
Before I recognize Mr. Motz, I would note that the motion does not have 48 hours, which is the usual expectation, and it is not pursuant to the business before the committee. Therefore, unless there is unanimous consent to table and debate the motion, we will have to wait for the 48-hour period.
Mr. Motz.
View John McKay Profile
Lib. (ON)
I need to know that we can proceed with this motion. Then we can hear debate on the content.
Does the committee give permission to proceed with the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Chair: I take note of Mr. Motz's intervention.
I see Madam Lambropoulos and then Madam Khera.
View Emmanuella Lambropoulos Profile
Lib. (QC)
I want to speak in support of Pam's motion.
My riding has a very high concentration of Jewish and Muslim Canadians. Both groups are living in fear right now because of events that occurred in Montreal a couple of weeks ago, anti-Semitic events that happened, and now because of the London event that took place. People are afraid to walk in the streets alone. People are having their windows broken if they have a certain flag or a certain sign on their door.
I definitely think this is a pressing matter right now especially. I feel that it definitely deserves the attention of this committee.
View Kamal Khera Profile
Lib. (ON)
Chair, just like Emmanuella, I want to speak in support of Ms. Damoff's motion. I thank her for actually bringing it forward, because from the testimony we've already heard and from NSICOP's report itself, we already knew that ideologically motivated violent extremism has been growing in Canada and has been getting worse since this pandemic.
Given the horrific terrorist attack motivated by Islamophobia that took place in London over the weekend that destroyed a whole family and has broken the entire Muslim community, I think as leaders the time to act is now. The Muslim community is hurting and so are other communities. I think at this committee we have the ability to act on this very pressing issue and a chance to do something before the House rises. We already know the terrorist attack was part of the larger trend in the rise of IMVE, ideologically motivated violent extremism
I agree with Ms. Damoff's motion that we commit to finishing our study on this to provide the government with recommendations on what needs to be done to ensure that attacks like this do not happen again. It's incumbent upon all of us as elected members, as leaders and as members of this committee, to make that happen, to ensure that all Canadians, whether they're Muslim Canadians, Black Canadians, Asian Canadians, Jewish Canadians, indigenous people or racialized Canadians can feel safe in their homes and their communities.
I really hope that we can move this motion forward and I hope that everyone can support it.
View Shannon Stubbs Profile
CPC (AB)
View Shannon Stubbs Profile
2021-06-09 16:57
Thanks, Chair.
Thank you, Pam, for bringing this motion forward. I, too, agree with the seriousness of it and the concept, the spirit, of completing our work and our report, and the specific witnesses who you're suggesting we bring forward in an urgent way to our committee. I sure as heck hope if there are immediate tools, which I think we've all been trying to explore, and legislative and policy remedies that could prevent and deter the heinous acts and crimes like the heinous act that took the lives of those innocent people and impacted their friends, neighbours, family members and an entire community, that it's being acted upon in government. I sincerely hope that our taking either a day or three extra days to report from our committee is not stopping that real work from happening if it is ready to go in government.
Chair, this is a bit embarrassing thing to confess: I have my material here prepared for our witnesses and the topic today, but could you or the clerk remind us what it is we had planned for which days? We're running up to there being eight days left in session. We all know that we want to complete the Levesque report, complete recommendations on Bastarache to drive to action, and then there is also a date for estimates. It's just so we can get a sense of logistics as to how we get all this done.
View John McKay Profile
Lib. (ON)
If this motion goes through as presented, on the Monday we would have to deal with the border study in some other fashion, and we'd have to deal with the Levesque report in some other fashion as well. The motion as presented would bump those two schedules, and how we would deal with those two later I'm not quite sure.
View Shannon Stubbs Profile
CPC (AB)
View Shannon Stubbs Profile
2021-06-09 17:00
Chair, are summer sittings an option, or are we going to run into a technical issue like we did the last time?
View John McKay Profile
Lib. (ON)
I would have to defer to our respective whips' offices, because I don't know that we have the ability to go past June 23 in a hybrid format, other than to go to real sittings in real places with real people, presumably in real Ottawa. At this point, as I understand it, that is before the parties. I haven't received a report from our whip, and I don't know about the other whips as well.
Jack.
View Jack Harris Profile
NDP (NL)
I guess the other question is, on a similar point, what is currently scheduled for Wednesday?
View John McKay Profile
Lib. (ON)
View Jack Harris Profile
NDP (NL)
It's the Levesque report for Wednesday and Monday.
View John McKay Profile
Lib. (ON)
No. Monday is the border study.
View Jack Harris Profile
NDP (NL)
We would prospectively be moving the agenda and possibly not completing the Levesque study in time to have it back to the House. That's one consequence, I suppose.
I agree with the idea of focusing right away on the issue, given its currency.
What strikes me, Pam, and others, is what's on the minds of people in the Muslim community, in particular today. Now, in the aftermath of the shock, I think people are very moved and are receiving condolences and prayers and support. However, I spoke to the president of the Muslim Association of Newfoundland and Labrador just before this meeting, and what they're interested in hearing is concrete action. They want to see concrete things done.
In the House today, Brian Masse, the member for Windsor, asked a question, and after question period asked to table a series of recommendations that were made two years ago during a committee on how to deal with hate speech, and it was rejected.
View Jack Harris Profile
NDP (NL)
This is a very serious matter, so I don't want to treat any of it lightly.
I did want to focus on the fact that if we're going to do this, I don't know if we're going to be able to finish this IMVE study. There are lots of contentions or contortions about all the various aspects of it that we've already wondered about, whether they're ideologically motivated or religiously motivated or whatever. I would prefer to ask both of the proposed witnesses—and I don't disagree with the witnesses—to come and ask them specifically.
We know the horrors of anti-Semitism and the effects thereof, as well as clearly what's before us, the horrors of what's called Islamophobia, which is literally the fear of Islam. I think it's really more of an Islamic hatred than a phobia. I don't know where that name actually came from.
What I would like to do is to ask these individuals to address that question specifically: What is it that they would like to see us report or recommend to government from the various ideas that are out there? We can do something specific on that, which may result in a motion to do a, b, c, and d, but do that separately, not as part of the larger study, because all these other questions start coming into it then.
There are lots of things out there. People want to see a crackdown on hate speech on the Internet. There are various things I've heard. Let's ask them what they think we should recommend, and compress it, not into part of a study that we may or may not get to finish, because events seem to overtake committee business during this time of the calendar. Let's see if we can do it, even if we hear witnesses on one day and explore options, and then on another day, the second day, listen to proposals and try to do a mini report or motion that would contain several proposals.
That would be much more preferable to me, and I think much more doable and efficient than just carrying on with that study that may never get to Parliament because of the time involved for translation and reports and all that goes with it.
View John McKay Profile
Lib. (ON)
Those are good points, all.
We're probably hovering at around 10 minutes right now.
I take note that we could bump the Levesque study scheduled for the 16th to the 23rd, which is when the other IMVE study was scheduled. For the Wednesday, you're essentially switching dates. Really, the only date that would be possibly lost would be on the border issue.
I see four hands, plus I understand that Ms. Larouche wants to speak as well. She is in the room all by her lonesome.
I saw Ms. Khera first and then Mr. Lightbound, and then I'll go to Madam Larouche.
View Joël Lightbound Profile
Lib. (QC)
I will be quick, Mr. Chair. Since 2014, a total of 21 Canadians have lost their lives at the hands of ideologically motivated violent extremists, not including the victims of the attack in London. That's more than any other form of extremism.
In terms of concrete steps parliamentarians can take, we need to hold these meetings and invite representatives of the National Council of Canadian Muslims. As Mr. Harris suggested, we should ask them what concrete actions they want us to take to fight the scourges of Islamophobia, anti-Semitism and racism in Canada.
This would also be an opportunity for them to go on the record before a parliamentary committee, given what a timely and sensitive issue this is. That is something concrete that we, as parliamentarians, can do. I support Ms. Damoff's motion or a similar motion to move up the meetings we already had scheduled to discuss this issue.
View Andréanne Larouche Profile
BQ (QC)
I would like to clarify something, Mr. Chair.
As I understand it, since the motion put forward today was not put on 48 hours' notice, unanimous consent is needed to extend the study.
Since we could, as a result of the vote, end up sitting past June 23, the motion would be subject to the discussions currently being had by the whips, in terms of figuring out whether committees can extend into the summer or not. Those talks are under way.
As you said not that long ago, Mr. Chair, this would mean postponing the study on Ms. Levesque until June 23 and not completing the border report.
I want to give this decision proper consideration. I believe the committee has already met a few times on violent extremism. The parties had agreed on a certain number of meetings, so I wanted to make that point for everyone's benefit as we prepare to vote.
View Glen Motz Profile
CPC (AB)
Thank you, Chair.
This is an issue that has grown and doesn't appear to be ending any time soon.
I think that as much as we need to hear from those, as Joël indicated and Pam laid out in her motion, nothing prevents the government....
We've talked about action. Of the things we hear between now and June 23, and even if we sit in the summer when Parliament isn't sitting, nothing is going to be actionable unless the government decides to act on it. The government doesn't need our committee to tell it to take some action. It can do that on its own. We have to be mindful of that. Yes, we need to hear from witnesses. We need to hear from those communities that are being impacted and we can learn.
That's important, but I think it's important for everyone to understand that our committee hearing these in the order we need to hear them and how that all looks.... Yes, we have to try to get a lot of work in a short period of time, but that does not preclude the government from taking action now, in advance.
I just want that to be very clear and on the record.
View John McKay Profile
Lib. (ON)
I'm just about to suspend. Correct me if I'm wrong, Mr. Clerk. I have lots of fun with suspensions and adjournments, but I think I'm suspending. We'll reconvene after the vote.
I interpret the conversation as waiving the 48 hours and that we are into the debate and the substance of the matter. I would like to get a conclusion, if you will, shortly after the vote, so we can respect our witnesses. I still have to get clarification from the clerk as to whether we will save the time, if you will, and still have a full two hours with the committee.
Could you clarify that, Mr. Clerk? We'll clarify it, I guess, after the vote.
View Pam Damoff Profile
Lib. (ON)
Chair, I was just going to suggest an alternative.
I'm disappointed that there isn't consensus to do the two meetings. To Jack's point about the National Council of Canadian Muslims and CIJA—the long name is escaping me right now, I'm sorry—I suggest that next week we have them for one meeting for 90 minutes, with 45 minutes for each party, whichever works best for the clerk to do. We would then take 30 minutes at that meeting to hopefully come up with some consensus for a motion that we could table in the House, based on their recommendations. We would listen to one and then the other for 45 minutes each and take 30 minutes to draft something for the House. Then we would do the border study.
I would leave it to the clerk as to when witnesses were available and whether that was Monday or Wednesday next week. I do think we need to get to this next week. That would then leave June 21 and 23 for the Levesque study.
I would have to amend my motion, Chair—
View Jack Harris Profile
NDP (NL)
Yes. June 16 was either the Levesque study, if we hadn't finished it, or the CSC study that we were undertaking. June 21 was either Levesque or CSC as well. June 23 was IMVE. That's the motion that was passed.
So there are two other studies that are affected, Levesque and the CSC, as well as the border study.
View Glen Motz Profile
CPC (AB)
All right.
I just want to say this. Further to what I said previously about this motion that's before us that Pam originally put forward, Chair, I look at this and it's so incredibly important that we hear this, but there's no action on here. There's no action from this motion that says what the committee is going to do with any of the information that we have or information that we're going to gather.
What I would encourage through Joël, as the PS to the public safety minister, is to go back to the minister and say that if we want action, because Canadians want action on this.... It might give us a warm feeling to have a conversation, but Canadians are looking for something that keeps them safe in their communities and we need to deal with this. I would encourage the minister and the government to meet with these groups and to action some things that we're not going to get actioned by hearing them at committee and then not giving anything to the government to action. That's what I'm getting at.
It's so critically important that we hear from these groups and we try to figure out some concrete plans, but in the short term this committee is handcuffed by time and the fact that Parliament won't be sitting in the summer to action the items that we hear. The government can. That's what I would encourage be done if we want to hear on IMVE and we want to hear from the Islamic groups and from the Jewish groups on what they're experiencing and what recommendations they would have.
That's my suggestion, Chair, and to Joël. Maybe that's an avenue where we can actually have these groups heard so that we could action some of those things, because what we hear now is there's no time. We're prisoners to the time that we have left.
View Andréanne Larouche Profile
BQ (QC)
Mr. Chair, to help me make up my mind and cast the right vote, I need some clarification on Ms. Damoff's motion, which may end up being amended.
Before we suspended, I had asked what the implications were for the committee's schedule. I was told that, if the motion were adopted, we would spend June 14 and 16 on this study, extremism, and June 21 and 23, our two meetings the last week, on the Levesque study.
Before the vote is called, I really need some clarification as to how the motion and amended motion will affect our schedule, because right now, it's not clear to me.
View John McKay Profile
Lib. (ON)
For a point of clarification, the only motion that's currently on the floor, the unamended motion, would replace the border study and Levesque next week with two studies for the IMVE, and that would presumably leave space for the Levesque study to be further dealt with on the 23rd because we would have one leftover space.
I hope that's clarifying for you.
We will go back to Mr. Lightbound and then Mr. Harris.
View Joël Lightbound Profile
Lib. (QC)
Mr. Chair, if I may say respectfully, what's before this committee is not about getting a warm feeling, as Glen has suggested. It's about giving a voice before a parliamentary committee to two communities who in recent years have felt increasingly unsafe because of the drastic rise in Islamophobia and anti-Semitism. We've seen 2020 become a record year for hate crimes in this country.
To me, reducing it to getting a warm feeling when this is an action we can take.... As parliamentarians, we offer this space to these groups to make their demands known and public and to hear what actions they'd like to see the Government of Canada and Parliament take.
It's not about getting a warm feeling. It's very important that we proceed with this motion.
I fail to see, really, what the issue is here. Pam has just suggested that we reduce it to one meeting, as was initially agreed, and that we move the meeting planned for the 23rd to the 14th or the 16th, next week, so that we hear from these groups on these pressing matters.
I would move to amend Pam's motion so that the session planned for the 23rd be moved to the week of the 14th and that we have the border study, CIJA and
the National Council of Canadian Muslims appear before the committee the week of the 14th.
I'm sorry. I just switched back to French. My mind gets a little confused between French and English at times.
We would have one meeting. There would be 90 minutes for CIJA and the National Council of Canadian Muslims and then 30 minutes to draft a motion for this committee to report back to the House on what we've heard from these two groups.
I think that's very important. It changes none of what we have planned. The only thing it changes is the order. I fail to see why we can't agree on this.
I would move to amend the motion. I hope the analysts can work something out from what I just said.
Thank you.
View John McKay Profile
Lib. (ON)
Okay. That amendment is properly moved and would have to be voted on before the main motion.
With that, we will hear from Mr. Harris, Madam Damoff and then Madam Stubbs.
View Jack Harris Profile
NDP (NL)
Thank you.
I would agree with most of what Mr. Lightbound said. Yes, we have heard, in recent weeks, in fact, about the climate of fear in the Jewish community in Canada, voiced publicly as a result of recent events and the rise of anti-Semitic acts. We have also heard clearly, since the events in London, an expression of real fear from the Muslim community and a call for action to get results.
I support the idea of having a 90-minute session where each of those groups could express their concerns and also offer specific recommendations regarding solutions and concrete actions. Half an hour may well be enough, if some thought is given to it advance, to craft a motion that would be referred to the House. I think we can do that.
However, there are several other motions before this committee that have to do with ongoing studies. One is in relation to the Bastarache report, for which a notice of motion has been given. There's also a notice of motion that I think went in today with respect to the Levesque study. There's also the motion I put forward. I gave the notice of motion regarding the study we were actually supposed to be starting today. That seems to be have been forgotten about, despite the fact that we have witnesses waiting.
I don't think we're being fair to the balance of our calendar. I would point out that three days were offered for the CSC study, which is of great importance and on which we have five witnesses waiting to talk today. I don't think we can ignore that.
There's a suggested method for dealing with the Levesque study that we can debate, and we may pass a version of that so we can complete that study.
If we were going to interrupt our schedule with respect to the Levesque study, I would prefer that we still try to complete that and to do that, potentially, by considering those motions.
Also, with respect to the border study, which I think was of great interest to Madam Michaud, instead of starting something we haven't even begun.... I don't know if there's still the same level of interest on that point. However, there is a lot of interest in the Bastarache report and the motion before the committee. There's interest in the CSC study and there are witnesses waiting to testify. As well, there is a proposal, I believe, from the Conservatives as to how to deal with the Levesque report. I think we should deal with those next week, as well.
I'm not in favour of Mr. Lightbound's amendment if it deals with only one aspect of what's before us.
View Pam Damoff Profile
Lib. (ON)
Chair, I'm actually surprised that we're still talking about this. I can't tell you how disappointed I am to hear comments like, “We're running out of time.” There was a family in London, Ontario, that ran out of time and were killed. I watched the vigil last night and I listened to every single leader of the Conservative Party, the Bloc Québécois, the Liberal Party and the New Democratic Party speak passionately. The Bloc leader was in London as well, even though he didn't speak. All of them talked about working across party lines.
I watched that vigil last night and I felt that it was urgent for the public safety committee to do work on this. We had already committed to a study on ideologically motivated violent extremism. We had already decided to do that. I listened to someone from the National Council of Canadian Muslims talk about how they wanted action and I felt that this was something we could do as parliamentarians. I also find it offensive to say that we, as parliamentarians, don't have a role. I'm sorry, but I believe we do. I believe we can give these people a voice and I would hope that we could vote on this.
I am prepared to agree to Joël's amendment. I've accepted to reduce this to one meeting, although I would have preferred to have two. I think this is something that we need to do urgently. I just think this talk about running out of time is terrible. We should vote on this, and if people don't feel that this is an important issue, then shame on them.
View Shannon Stubbs Profile
CPC (AB)
View Shannon Stubbs Profile
2021-06-09 18:02
Chair, I am wholeheartedly amenable to Joël's suggestion here, which might come to a solution that we all want, to hear from representatives of the NCCM and CIJA about their recommendations to government, but as Jack and Glen have said, also to see government then act efficiently and expeditiously on the actions that they can take.
My only concern—and Joël, I don't know, maybe you can help guarantee this or whatever wording might be necessary to do it—is, as Jack has articulated, that it is also imperative that we do our report on Levesque. I'm sure that Joël feels the same way too, given that young woman's death. We need to figure out a way to be able to complete that and report out on that work.
You all know that I do believe we need to make recommendations to report out on the Bastarache report, about which I think we also share the same concern and desire to see actual consequences, support for victims and consequences for offenders, and so too with this heinous crime in London.
Joël might be on track here to helping us get to a solution. I just want to make sure that whichever way we have to, as a committee, we ensure that we complete these other items that we're working on.
View Kamal Khera Profile
Lib. (ON)
Mr. Chair, I briefly wanted to comment on Mr. Motz's comments and echo what both Joël and Pam said. I think it's important to recognize the role that this committee and its members play.
Government certainly has a job to do, and government has taken action on listing the terrorist groups, and is taking action but, as Pam said, what we saw yesterday was all parties coming together at the vigil and saying that we must work together. We already have a study before us where we were studying IMVE. We heard just the week before from witnesses about this climate of hate and the rise of Islamophobia and anti-Semitism. Committees have a role to play in listening to these groups, as this is the most important threat right now to Canada, as we heard.
I think it's truly incumbent upon all of us to hear from these groups, give them the space that's needed, and make recommendations to the government before the House rises. I just don't understand, Mr. Chair, why we are even debating this. I really thought there would have been unanimous support on this motion. It's not a new study. It's something that we're already studying. I just hope that we can get it done.
View Glen Motz Profile
CPC (AB)
Chair, I want to clarify a couple of things.
First, Joël, thanks for the amendment to the motion. That is something I certainly would support and do support.
I want to make it very, very clear that my statements at the front end were that this is a critically important study and a critically important issue that we have to deal with. It's increasing in this country, and it's completely unacceptable.
These groups who wish to come as witnesses want a voice. They deserve a voice, but what they need is action. That's what my point was. That's the point that I will stick to. This government can action things that this committee may not be able to in a timely way. That's my point. I'll stick to that. These groups want action.
Joël, you said it yourself, and, Kamal, you said it yourself: These groups need action. They have to have a voice. This committee is a vehicle for that but so is, directly, Public Safety Canada. The minister can meet with these groups and action some of these items immediately, faster than this committee can. That's what these groups need. Anything short of that is unacceptable in my books.
This sort of crime needs to stop, obviously, but a study here doesn't solve the problem immediately. That's my point. If it was misunderstood, I apologize for that, but action is what's required, not just words.
View Joël Lightbound Profile
Lib. (QC)
I'll be brief. Just to answer Shannon, I think it's fundamental that this committee provide its perspective on the tragic death of Marylène Levesque; however, the amended motion would not impact whatsoever the number of meetings that we've planned to work on the Levesque report, just to be clear.
I would hope that the debate collapses soon. Thank you.
View Jack Harris Profile
NDP (NL)
First of all, I just want to say that from my point of view, this debate is not about whether we immediately hear from CIJA and the National Council of Canadian Muslims as well, which we should do as soon as possible for the length of time it takes.
I think it's been proposed that we do that for one meeting with a focus on concrete action that this committee can recommend to government that ought to be taken immediately to address, not only the concern, but also solutions that we hope will help. I think that has to happen, and that should happen right away.
I regret that we've ended up with a motion that ends up, I think, disturbing three other studies of this committee without an opportunity to talk about that other than to be accused of not being interested in dealing with the main question that's before us. It's made it impossible to have that debate. I guess we may as well go ahead and vote and let us get on with the CSC study, which seems to have been thrown out the window by this, and, unless we do something else next week, we don't have an opportunity to deal with the motions that deal with those three studies.
View Joël Lightbound Profile
Lib. (QC)
Yes, I will read it:
That, pursuant to the motion adopted on May 5, 2021, the Committee continue its study on Ideologically Motivated Violent Extremism; a meeting during the week of June 14, 2021 and, that the Committee invite the National Council of Canadian Muslims and the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs to appear as witnesses at that meeting.
View Pam Damoff Profile
Lib. (ON)
Could we have a recorded vote, Chair?
View John McKay Profile
Lib. (ON)
We can have a recorded vote.
(Amendment agreed to: yeas 11; nays 0 )
The Chair: That would then put the motion as amended to the committee.
Do we wish to have another recorded vote?
View Pam Damoff Profile
Lib. (ON)
View Glen Motz Profile
CPC (AB)
Chair, could you have that motion read as amended please? Is that the one that Joël just did?
View John McKay Profile
Lib. (ON)
We just unanimously agreed to the amendment. That amends the main motion, so now we have to vote on the main motion as amended.
View Jack Harris Profile
NDP (NL)
We seem to have replaced the main motion.
Mark D'Amore
View Mark D'Amore Profile
Mark D'Amore
2021-06-09 18:14
The motion as amended reads:
That, pursuant to the motion adopted on May 5, 2021, the Committee continue its study on Ideologically Motivated Violent Extremism; a meeting during the week of June 14, 2021 and, that the Committee invite the National Council of Canadian Muslims and the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs to appear as witnesses at that meeting.
View John McKay Profile
Lib. (ON)
There has been a request for a recorded vote.
(Motion as amended agreed to: yeas 11; nays 0)
The Chair: Thank you.
Clerk, could you advise me as to how much time we have left for this meeting?
View Jack Harris Profile
NDP (NL)
A notice of motion had been given regarding the disclosure of documents made available to the committee on June 3. It relates to the business of this particular study and I'd like to move:
That the committee publicly release all documents that were made available to the committee on June 3, 2021, pursuant to the motion adopted by the committee on May 5, 2021 regarding Correctional Service Canada’s transition to Structured Intervention Units, and that all additional documents regarding the same motion be made public as they are provided to the committee.
That's been circulated in both languages, sir, and it has had 48 hours' notice. The documents that have been available are redacted in the sense of privacy considerations. No names are used. The names are protected. They're public information that would be available, in any event, on an ATIP, so I think we can go ahead and release them.
View Shannon Stubbs Profile
CPC (AB)
View Shannon Stubbs Profile
2021-06-09 18:17
Chair, following all of that, I think that we still have outstanding motions we need to deal with, so can you confirm for us when will we do that next week and at which meeting?
View Jack Harris Profile
NDP (NL)
I would agree that we should call in the other witnesses, but I would also like to move a motion that we continue this study in the week of June 14.
View John McKay Profile
Lib. (ON)
We're going to have to deal with that. If we're going to deal with this at all today—hear these witnesses—we're not going to be able to deal with the motion, even though the motion is in order.
Mr. Clerk, if you could admit the other two witnesses, that would be appreciated.
View Jack Harris Profile
NDP (NL)
I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.
Can we deal with that motion during this meeting at some point? It's relevant, and it's in order.
View John McKay Profile
Lib. (ON)
It's in order and it's relevant to the study. The concern is that we're running through time.
Results: 1 - 60 of 21847 | Page: 1 of 365

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
>
>|
Export As: XML CSV RSS

For more data options, please see Open Data