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.
Conservative
Rick Norlock Conservative Northumberland—Quinte West, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
You have clarified some of the questions.
My first question is this: has the chair read the document?
Liberal
Conservative
Rick Norlock Conservative Northumberland—Quinte West, ON
You say that you know that the document exists, and you know that it was Deputy Commissioner Sweeney...and who conducted the audit under the authorization of the chief of police of Toronto.
Conservative
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal Mark Holland
What I had said—hopefully I can make this as clear as possible—was that the Deputy Commissioner of the RCMP appeared before this committee and made reference to this report. Then, in questioning yesterday, I posed a question to Chief Bill Blair, president of the chiefs of police, on whether he himself had seen this internal audit. He said that he had.
That's what I'm referring to.
Conservative
Rick Norlock Conservative Northumberland—Quinte West, ON
Okay. Thank you very much.
The RCMP operates under the Government of Canada. Can anyone in Canada demand that the RCMP...?
Some of these could be rhetorical questions, but the chair can feel free to answer them.
The RCMP does an audit of itself. Therefore, it's operating under the purview of the Minister of Public Safety. One would assume that the Minister of Public Safety, or a person authorized by him or her, would commission a document to be done, or commission an audit to be done. Or if the RCMP does its own internal audit, to whom do they provide that audit? Who is the appropriate authority?
I would suggest that it's the government, and if that's the case, then I would suggest that the appropriate person we should have here is the person to whom the audit is designed to be seen by. Who is to see this audit?
From there, of course, once it's provided to the minister, it becomes, I would think, unless it's a matter of cabinet dealings, a public document. But I think we need to go down that route.
There seems to be, to me, some impropriety here, or the possibility of it. I'm not a lawyer, but I know something about the law. I don't want to make accusations; I just need questions answered so that those thoughts that we have, so that those possibilities that we have, are answered.
What you're trying to do, Mr. Chair, or at least what I see being done here, is the introduction of a document to further the advancement of a certain opinion. If that's the case, and if it is a Government of Canada document, then we should be able to make sure, as a committee, that it does not contravene some regulation of the Government of Canada. We can only do that if we know certain things, those questions that I just posed--
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal Mark Holland
Mr. Norlock, perhaps I can interject and very quickly answer your question. Then, since I'm sure you don't want to stop our witnesses from testifying--
Conservative
Rick Norlock Conservative Northumberland—Quinte West, ON
Absolutely I don't, Mr. Holland, but just a minute: you're making an accusation--
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal Mark Holland
—we can move to a vote.
If I may, the Speaker made a very clear ruling about Parliament's ability to request documents. That ruling, I think, was eminently clear. What is even more clear in this case is that these are documents that are to be released publicly.
I'm sure, Mr. Norlock, that neither you nor the Conservative Party would want to stand in the way of this committee, while undertaking its hearings, to be able to look at the most current and relevant information from the RCMP in terms of the efficacy of the firearms registry.
Now, this is a very clear, simple request. There are two documents. One is the Canadian firearms program evaluation of February 2010 and one is the internal audit of the same date. We've been waiting since February of 2010 for those documents.
This committee will begin its clause-by-clause considerations next week. I'm sure no one wants to stand in the way of this committee being able to have all the information before it.
Again, I have Mr. McColeman on my list for one minute. Then I'm going to abdicate the chair so that we can have a vote and we can get to our witnesses.
Mr. McColeman...
Mr. Rathgeber, on a point of order.
Conservative
Brent Rathgeber Conservative Edmonton—St. Albert, AB
On a point of order, the debate ends when the debate ends. You cannot limit a member of this committee to 60 seconds of debate.
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal Mark Holland
Okay.
There is a challenge to the chair. A challenge to the chair is not debatable. The vote is on whether to uphold the decision of the chair: a vote for would uphold the decision of the chair; a vote against would overturn the decision of the chair.
Those in favour of upholding the decision of the chair will please raise their hand...
Madame Mourani, on a point of order.
Bloc
Maria Mourani Bloc Ahuntsic, QC
I have a point of order.
I would like to know who is entitled to vote here, because I believe there was an agreement between the whips.
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal Mark Holland
Yes, you are right to remind us of that. There is an agreement that each time a vote is held, we ensure that there are the same number of members from each party at the table.
For the vote I will abdicate the chair so that we can have a vote with an equal number of members.
So which government member will take the chair so that we can have the vote?
Conservative
Rick Norlock Conservative Northumberland—Quinte West, ON
Mr. Chair, we're challenging the present chair, not a future chair.
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal Mark Holland
Right, but in order to maintain the same vote count, as the whips have agreed—
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal Mark Holland
The rules and the agreements that have been made between all parties are that in the event of a vote, we would maintain the exact vote count.
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal Mark Holland
Well, on that basis, there's no debate; the rule that's being broken is the agreement between the whips.
In any event, those who uphold the decision of the chair will please raise their hands.
(Ruling of the chair overturned)
So the decision is not upheld.
