Evidence of meeting #1 for Public Safety and National Security in the 43rd Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was chair.
A recording is available from Parliament.
4:05 p.m.
Conservative
Shannon Stubbs Conservative Lakeland, AB
I agree with the change that Damien's trying to make because of our virtual scenario. We could all conceivably be present, but if we're not physically there, we don't want House administration to be running around, spending money or taking up their time to make meals people aren't going to eat.
4:05 p.m.
NDP
Jack Harris NDP St. John's East, NL
This is not for this meeting we're having now, for example. It's only for a meeting that has a boardroom where there are actually people physically present in Ottawa. It doesn't quite say that, but okay.
4:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John McKay
Is there any other discussion?
(Amendment agreed to)
(Motion as amended agreed to)
We're on travel, accommodation and living expenses of witnesses. The motion would read:
That, if requested, reasonable travel, accommodation and living expenses be reimbursed to witnesses not exceeding two representatives per organization; and that in exceptional circumstances, payment for more representatives be made at the discretion of the chair.
4:05 p.m.
Liberal
Pam Damoff Liberal Oakville North—Burlington, ON
John, if the committee agrees, I will give you a motion to adopt the remaining routine motions in one vote. I think all the ones that needed changes have been dealt with now.
4:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John McKay
I'm looking for support to that effect. You're moving that as a motion, right?
4:05 p.m.
Liberal
Pam Damoff Liberal Oakville North—Burlington, ON
Yes, I am.
(Motion agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
4:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John McKay
Excellent. Thank you.
I was rather hoping to go to subcommittee work. Let me take some guidance here from the clerk.
You had sent me a motion that says that the subcommittee on general procedure be established, and be composed of five members, the chair, etc. In light of the motions we passed, do we need to deal with that motion?
4:10 p.m.
The Clerk
Mr. Chair, the only problem is that as the motion is worded right now, I need to confirm with the whip of each party who will be a member of the subcommittee. That may delay us.
If the committee wants to adopt a different motion and rescind the one that was adopted earlier, that's another option. Perhaps we could specify the actual people, and then in the future we could move again to the regular motion.
4:10 p.m.
Liberal
Pam Damoff Liberal Oakville North—Burlington, ON
Chair, I'm going to suggest moving a motion here and then that we move to subcommittee to develop a work plan and pick a date that people can put forward additional studies.
The motion I want to bring is:
That, pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the committee undertake a study into systemic racism in policing in Canada and in particular the RCMP, and that the evidence and documentation received by the committee during the First Session of the 43rd Parliament on the subject be taken into consideration by the committee in the current session; that the committee report its findings to the House; and that, pursuant to Standing Order 109, the committee request that the Government table a comprehensive response to the report.
My wording would have been that we continue a study except we really can't. This was Jack's initiative in the summer, so basically we would be finishing the good work we started in the summer.
I'm getting ahead a bit, but perhaps that gives us the ability to get the clerk working on this. We can move to the subcommittee whenever he has the names to develop a work plan. Then perhaps we could pick a date as a group for all parties to submit additional ideas for studies, and then we can hash that out in the steering committee.
4:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John McKay
That's a motion properly before the committee.
Is there any discussion?
4:10 p.m.
NDP
Jack Harris NDP St. John's East, NL
I don't think it needs a seconder, but I will second it in any event.
Yes, I am in complete agreement with that approach, Pam, and thank you for preparing that motion because, of course, the study is no more until we revive it. I think that effectively revives the study and allows us to consider all the evidence, and to hear more. That would be totally appropriate. I don't know how long it's going to take to know who is going to be on the subcommittee. I don't think there's much doubt about that.
Perhaps there are a number of other studies I have given consideration to, but I didn't think today was the day we were going to talk about them. If we could proceed with whatever we have to do to continue the study we're adopting and, at the same time, set a date for a steering or subcommittee meeting, I think by then we would have things in place from the whips to allow the subcommittee to meet.
4:10 p.m.
Bloc
Kristina Michaud Bloc Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC
I was going to move more or less the same motion as Ms. Damoff, so I'm obviously in favour of it. However, could we get it in writing so it's all spelled out?
Next, I'd like to know whether we're adopting motions, as I have others to put forward. Is now the time for that?
4:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John McKay
Pam's initial motion is to get the work of the committee started, specifically on the racism study. Meanwhile, the subcommittee would be properly constituted, and we would then, as a subcommittee, pick a date to get together to deal with other issues to be pursued, other studies to be undertaken, and set out a work plan for the committee.
Is it the will of the committee to, first of all, deal with Pam's motion?
4:10 p.m.
Conservative
Damien Kurek Conservative Battle River—Crowfoot, AB
To clarify, are there two motions on the floor, one to deal with the systemic racism study, and then another to assign the subcommittee the ability to determine—
4:15 p.m.
Liberal
4:15 p.m.
Conservative
Glen Motz Conservative Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB
I don't have an issue with the first part of Pam's motion on studying racism. My concern is that any other motions that Kristina, Jack or any of my colleagues on the Conservative side want to bring forward on a study are effectively going to be relegated to the subcommittee to decide. Those are conversations the entire committee should be having on what studies we're going to be moving forward with.
I'm prepared to suggest to Pam that we amend the motion to say that if you want to study systemic racism, let's deal with that in a motion. If we're going to deal with anything else besides that, whether it be subcommittees or other motions, then we deal with those separately. That would be my recommendation.
4:15 p.m.
Conservative
Damien Kurek Conservative Battle River—Crowfoot, AB
I would agree with my colleague Glen. It seems to me that one of the most valuable aspects of the committee format is to ensure that the subjects of studies and whatnot can be debated in a format where we can give appropriate scrutiny.
The subcommittee is very valuable, and in terms of work plans for any particular motion, I 100% agree. However, in terms of the work of the committee, I'm not comfortable with that being part of a motion that would effectively reduce any of our members' ability, who are not on the subcommittee, to move forward with really anything that's of merit that this committee may or may not study.
4:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John McKay
For procedural cleanliness, can we deal with the motion? Then, if either Glen or Damien wish to discuss further issues at the committee rather than at the subcommittee, a motion can be moved to that effect.
4:15 p.m.
NDP
Jack Harris NDP St. John's East, NL
Can I jump in? I appreciate what both Glen and Damien were saying. My understanding is that the subcommittee doesn't make decisions as to which studies will be pursued. The committee may discuss various subjects and recommend certain subjects, but nothing can be decided by the subcommittee other than to send a report to the committee.
If there needs to be preliminary discussion by the full committee, then that's a different matter. I don't particularly see anything wrong with that, but normally, we have proceeded the other way. However, that's a matter for the committee to decide, I guess.
4:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John McKay
To go back, can we deal with Pam's motion? Then we'll move to the concerns raised by Damien and Glen, and Jack can make his point.
4:15 p.m.
Conservative
Tako Van Popta Conservative Langley—Aldergrove, BC
Just for clarification on Pam's motion about systemic racism, was there included in her motion some language about how many hours or days or meetings we're going to dedicate to that study?