Evidence of meeting #21 for Public Safety and National Security in the 40th Parliament, 3rd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was firearm.
A recording is available from Parliament.
3:50 p.m.
An hon. member
Wait; he didn't vote.
3:50 p.m.
An hon. member
He didn't put his hand up.
3:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal Mark Holland
Well, it doesn't matter; I said the decision was not upheld. If you want to continue to filibuster and not hear the witnesses, that's your prerogative.
3:50 p.m.
Conservative
Dave MacKenzie Conservative Oxford, ON
We're not here to filibuster, Chair. You're the one who started this thing today.
3:50 p.m.
Conservative
3:50 p.m.
Conservative
Phil McColeman Conservative Brant, ON
My recollection of the documents, at least from the testimony that I heard from Chief Blair, was that this was more than an audit document. Audit was part of it.
I was very surprised, and frankly taken aback, by Chief Blair's testimony, in the sense that he'd had access to be able to read this document prior to coming here as a witness and we as committee members had not. In some ways, as a committee member, I think to myself, “Why would he have access to that document other than for the purposes of supporting his view?”
So I would suggest that we move back to the speaking order we had at the end of the last meeting for the balance of the discussion on this document, because I am totally confused about what this document is. There was confusion when the motion was put forward by Mr. Wrzesnewskyj at the end of last meeting, and I was confused in terms of what this document was all about.
I'd like to know more before I vote for either requesting the document or not requesting it.
3:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal Mark Holland
I have Ms. Glover on my list, but before I go to Ms. Glover, let me be as clear as I can. The documents are twofold: one, the Canadian firearms program evaluation of February 2010, conducted by the RCMP; and, two, the internal audit of the same name, done at the same period of time, February of 2010.
I don't know how I can be any more specific than that. Both these documents were specifically referenced by witnesses who read them.
Ms. Glover.
3:50 p.m.
Conservative
Shelly Glover Conservative Saint Boniface, MB
With all due respect, Chair, your specifics come into question when you reference three or four people and then you state only two people. I have to question whether or not you know exactly what you're talking about when you reference anything.
I would like to move, though, right now, that we put this item at the end of the agenda. With all due respect, we have witnesses here who are very important to this study. I would like to hear from the witnesses.
So I move that we put this debate at the end of our agenda and that we deal with the witnesses right now and listen to what it is they have to share with us.
3:50 p.m.
An hon. member
Hear, hear!
3:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal Mark Holland
Is it your intent, so that we can save time, to continue to violate the agreement that was made between the parties that when there are votes before the House—
3:50 p.m.
Conservative
3:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal Mark Holland
No, I'm just asking, because the agreement that had been made between all parties was that if there was a vote--
3:50 p.m.
Conservative
3:50 p.m.
An hon. member
It's not debatable.
3:50 p.m.
Liberal
3:50 p.m.
Conservative
3:50 p.m.
Conservative
Shelly Glover Conservative Saint Boniface, MB
You are misleading the committee, and I believe we ought to hear from these witnesses.
