Evidence of meeting #29 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 chair.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Garry Breitkreuz
I'd like to bring this meeting to order.
This is the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security, meeting 29. Today is July 12, and we are, according to Standing Order 106(4), meeting as requested by four members of the committee to discuss their request to undertake a study of the issues surrounding security at the G-8 and G-20 summits. That is the beginning of our focus here, so we can discuss this and move on from there.
Mr. MacKenzie.
Conservative
Dave MacKenzie Conservative Oxford, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
If I may, I want to take this opportunity to thank you personally for having returned to Ottawa. Every member of this committee had to cancel, or at the very least reschedule, important constituency work to be here today. But as we all know, the people of your riding have been devastated by severe flooding, and clearly you would much rather be home at this time attending to their needs.
We have a motion that we would like to submit, in both official languages, that we feel addresses this issue in the most productive, reasonable, and honest way possible.
I hereby move that the committee commend the efforts of front-line police officers who worked in exceptionally difficult circumstances to protect the safety of Canadians, delegates, and visitors to the city of Toronto and the town of Huntsville; and that the committee reject calls to promote the agendas of the violent mob made up of thugs and hooligans who set fire to police cars and damaged property during the G-20 in Toronto.
The Government of Canada has been open and transparent with--
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Garry Breitkreuz
Yes, there's a motion on the floor.
Mr. Holland, you have a point of order.
Liberal
Mark Holland Liberal Ajax—Pickering, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
The committee has rules with respect to the production of a motion. Forty-eight hours are required. This is the first time I've heard this motion. We have a motion that's before us. If there was an amendment in order, then Mr. MacKenzie could move, once we have the opportunity to begin debate of the motion, but a new motion would not be in order, Mr. Chair.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Garry Breitkreuz
Let me first of all deal with the point of order from Mr. Holland.
Forty-eight hours is not necessary if the motion relates to the matter at hand. That is one of the rules of committee. So if this motion relates to the matters at hand, it could be moved. No other motion has been tabled at this point; we've got notice of them.
Liberal
Mark Holland Liberal Ajax—Pickering, ON
Mr. Chair, if I could, the problem I'm having with what you're saying is that, first, the motion is substantive; and second, the motion would follow after this motion. So even if I were to accept your ruling, a motion introduced on the floor, out of the blue, would follow the motion that is already duly presented before committee.
One can't walk in and say, “Well, I've decided to bring a motion to the floor with no notice”, and supplant a motion that's before us. There's clearly an order--even if I were to accept your ruling--in which the motions would need to be dealt with. That's the traditional practice of the committee.
So even if I were to accept your first logic, there's a problem with the order in which these are dealt with. This is not the appropriate time to be dealing with a motion off the floor.
Conservative
NDP
Paul Dewar NDP Ottawa Centre, ON
Thank you very much, Chair, and thank you for being here today as well.
I just want to underline the point that we had a motion in front of us to have a meeting and to deal with that motion. Another item that should be cited here in the point of order I'm making is not just that we have the motion we're debating right now, but that there was a subsequent motion following that, which was given 48 hours' notice, which would naturally follow in sequence after this motion was dealt with. I'm referring to the motion that all members have, I think, in both official languages, that we would have a witness immediately after if we decided to conduct meetings on the G-8 and G-20. Ms. Nathalie Des Rosiers was here, and that motion was to follow this one.
In terms of sequence, I think there was the motion we had live on whether or not to have a meeting on the G-8 and G-20. Following that was the motion that was submitted by my colleague, with 48 hours' notice, to have a witness to follow up on our request for a meeting on the G-8 and G-20. So I respectfully submit to Mr. MacKenzie that it was fair enough if he read something into the record. I think he's done that, and if we can, let's move on now and actually vote on the motion in front of us.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Garry Breitkreuz
Mr. MacKenzie, you wanted to respond?
Oh, yes, Mr. Del Mastro, you are next in this, and then Ms. Mourani.
Conservative
Dean Del Mastro Conservative Peterborough, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, on this issue of the point of order, I just wanted to make a couple of things clear. First of all, you as chair recognized Mr. MacKenzie. There is no motion before the committee. The committee was called together on this topic. That's the topic to which Mr. MacKenzie is speaking. He has been granted the floor, which gives him the opportunity to introduce a motion.
I don't believe there's any point of order here. You have clarified that he is speaking to the content and to the issue before the committee. I think it's only appropriate that Mr. MacKenzie be entitled to complete his statement. He has been given the floor, and others will be given the opportunity to have the floor as well. He's put a motion before committee. If members opposite don't wish to support that motion, at the correct time they can exercise their opinions on the motion. Mr. MacKenzie does have the floor. I think the point of order is invalid.
Bloc
Maria Mourani Bloc Ahuntsic, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I would like to point out that at the committee's last meeting, on July 5, 2010, which focused on CSIS and Mr. Fadden's allegations, I introduced a motion that called for Mr. Fadden's resignation and that he be held at fault for his actions. Mr. Préfontaine and Mr. Davies, who was replacing you that day, told me that 48 hours' notice was required.
We were talking about Mr. Fadden. The topic was CSIS and Mr. Fadden. I introduced a motion about him and was told that I had to give 48 hours' notice. So I believe that Mr. MacKenzie can give us his notice of motion today. He needs 48 hours, the same as everyone else at this table.
Furthermore, a motion was also put forward by my NDP colleague. My motion was introduced on July 5, with 48 hours' notice. So I would like to debate the motion, which everyone has received and which states that the committee blames Richard Fadden and calls on the Prime Minister to ask for his resignation. I, too, have motions I want to move.
Today's meeting was called so we could make some real decisions and vote to determine whether we want to discuss the G-20 or not and hold meetings accordingly.There are a lot of witnesses I want to meet with, perhaps unlike my colleague, Mr. MacKenzie, who wants to commend people on their excellent work.
Liberal
Mark Holland Liberal Ajax—Pickering, ON
Just on that same point of order, Mr. Chair, I think Madame Mourani is correct about placing the motions in the order in which they are received. That is the practice and convention of this committee.
Secondly, I would suggest, Mr. Chair, that in the event we're going to break from the convention that you deal with motions in the order in which the committee receives them, in the order in which we have agreed to deal with them, then the most appropriate action would be to seek the committee's concurrence regarding which motions to deal with first.
Conservative
Dave MacKenzie Conservative Oxford, ON
With all due respect, Mr. Chair, Mr. Holland, of all people, knows that you can present motions in the committee. He's done it a number of times. Obviously his memory is a little bit short. He's done it with respect to committee agendas and other issues. There is no other motion on the floor. My motion is the only motion on the floor.
We're here. That's not a motion. We're here. That calls for the meeting, and we're here, Mr. Holland, with all due respect.
There are a number of motions that have been brought before this committee that haven't been dealt with because they haven't been brought to the floor, and they deal with a variety of interests. In this case, Mr. Chair, I was recognized by the chair. Nobody was before. They've introduced their motion and circulated it. That's fair, but it wasn't presented to the committee. My motion has been presented to the committee, and we should deal with it. That's parliamentary practice. It's what we should be doing here today.
Our presence means we've all agreed to be here, obviously. We've consented to that. But my motion is duly moved to the table, and we should deal with it.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Garry Breitkreuz
Okay. Mr. McColeman had his hand up to be recognized as well.
Mr. McColeman.
Conservative
Phil McColeman Conservative Brant, ON
If we're talking about the order of motions, I recall that at the last committee meeting prior to the summer constituency break, there was a motion on the table that was being debated, so I'm not so sure there wasn't a motion presented by Mr. Wrzesnewskyj. If you're trying to make determinations on which motion should go first, that motion was on our agenda that day. It was not dealt with, and I'm just wondering, if you're talking about order of motions, where that would stand, Mr. Chair.
Liberal
Andrew Kania Liberal Brampton West, ON
Briefly, and to address the point of my friend Mr. McColeman, this is a special meeting that has been constituted pursuant to this motion that was signed. I won't read the whole motion, but it was specifically with respect to the G-8 and G-20 summits. That's why we're here, so we would not be dealing with any other motions. It has to be topical to this.