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.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Clerk of the Committee  Mr. Jean-Marie David

5:10 p.m.

The Clerk

Yes, sir.

5:10 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal John McKay

Okay.

(Motion agreed to: yeas 11; nays 0)

Pam.

5:15 p.m.

Liberal

Pam Damoff Liberal Oakville North—Burlington, ON

Chair, I'd like to move a motion that any additional ideas for studies be submitted to the clerk in the form of a motion by Friday, October 16, for distribution to the committee. I'm amenable to changing the date on that, but it gives the committee a week to put them together, including, perhaps, Kristina's idea about ways to promote rehabilitation and reduce recidivism in correctional...and I know other people have spoken about having ideas.

I'd like to move that any motions for additional studies be submitted to the clerk by Friday, October 16.

5:15 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal John McKay

Is there any discussion?

Damien.

5:15 p.m.

Conservative

Damien Kurek Conservative Battle River—Crowfoot, AB

I'm curious as to the reason why something like that would be necessary. Certainly as guidance, as soon as we have an understanding of when this committee can meet.... I know the clerk mentioned that there are challenges in the scheduling aspect and whatnot.

Certainly, a committee is in charge of its own destiny, so I'm not sure that a motion like that is necessary, when it's certainly in good conduct and appropriate to distribute motions ahead of time. If I were to move something, I would endeavour to do so, but a motion that limits the ability of the committee to do its work, I don't know that I could support that. I'd be curious to hear from others, but limiting the committee's ability to do its job is something that I find troubling.

5:15 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal John McKay

Gagan.

October 8th, 2020 / 5:15 p.m.

Liberal

Gagan Sikand Liberal Mississauga—Streetsville, ON

I don't think the intention there is to limit the ability of the committee to do its work. It's actually to do it more thoroughly. We're all presenting things off the floor, and to your point, it's not actually getting the attention it deserves. I think it's Pam's intention to have everything presented so that everyone could thoroughly go through it and then we can proceed from there, if I'm not mistaken.

5:15 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal John McKay

Next is Kristina, then Damien, then Jack and Pam.

5:15 p.m.

Bloc

Kristina Michaud Bloc Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC

Thank you.

I'm inclined to support Ms. Damoff's motion. I, myself, have other motions to put forward, one of which I could move today. There's not a whole lot of time left before the meeting ends to debate it properly, however. Perhaps I have time to move my next motion, which we talked about.

I know other members have motions, including Mr. Harris, who didn't expect to do it today either. It may be a good idea to arrange another meeting, quickly if possible, as the clerk mentioned.

5:15 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal John McKay

Jack.

5:15 p.m.

NDP

Jack Harris NDP St. John's East, NL

I just wanted to say that I didn't see it as restrictive. I saw it as giving an opportunity for all the ideas to be on the table at once. We're only deciding.... We will look at priorities. I may have ideas but, when I hear Kristina's, I may say that I really want to do that one ahead of mine. It gives us an opportunity to see what else is on the table.

The committee is always master of its destiny and can make a decision to prioritize something when something comes up on a given occasion that people think needs to be dealt with quickly. That's always left to the committee. I think it's a good idea to give people a chance to put all the ideas forward, and the rest of the committee can then decide.

5:15 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal John McKay

We have Damien, then Pam.

5:15 p.m.

Conservative

Damien Kurek Conservative Battle River—Crowfoot, AB

I certainly don't disagree with the intent. However, I'm always hesitant when we create procedural boundaries to allowing a committee to be able to do its work.

Certainly the spirit of the motion is perfectly in line with what I think is appropriate and perfectly in line with what I would suggest is good conduct. Acknowledging what the clerk mentioned in his statements regarding the organization and the changing dynamics that we all face—whether it be COVID or the hybrid context in which we meet—I would agree with the intent. I'm just not sure that a motion to do that.... Excuse my lack of experience, but it would be my understanding that to make changes, if something did come up, for example, on the 17th, it would require unanimous consent of the committee to be able to move forward.

5:15 p.m.

A voice

No.

5:15 p.m.

Conservative

Damien Kurek Conservative Battle River—Crowfoot, AB

No? I would appreciate clarification, then, on what that would look like, because my reading of the Standing Orders would suggest that a motion like that could restrict the committee's ability to do its work.

Again, I agree with the intent. I'm just not sure that a motion is necessarily required, when we're all in agreement with what is good conduct for ensuring that we can do exactly what all of my colleagues have mentioned.

5:20 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal John McKay

Pam is next, and then Shannon.

5:20 p.m.

Liberal

Pam Damoff Liberal Oakville North—Burlington, ON

Thanks, Chair.

I appreciate my colleague's concerns. This is something that has been quite common, certainly in the last five years, on the committees that I have sat on. I can't speak to other ones.

Nothing precludes a member from bringing a motion to committee at any time. That has happened, and then it's up to the committee whether it wants to vote on it or not. There's absolutely nothing that precludes him from bringing a motion at any time.

What this does do, though, is allow.... We have two studies that we've already approved, which are going to take some time. We have a work plan to finish our study on systemic racism and to finish our study on the Parole Board of Canada. Those are two studies we've already approved. This would give us an opportunity to take a look at what other members are interested in doing and develop a bit of a work plan. It is subject to change at any time, but it would give us all an opportunity to review them.

As Jack was saying, it may very well be that you, Damien, put in a motion and then when we look at it we think that's a really good idea and maybe we could add to it and change it a little bit and we move forward. It's not uncommon. It doesn't go against any rules of procedure. It doesn't preclude him from bringing forward a motion at any time with 48 hours of notice, I believe, Chair, for the committee to vote on.

5:20 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal John McKay

We have Shannon, and then Gagan.

5:20 p.m.

Conservative

Shannon Stubbs Conservative Lakeland, AB

Thanks, Chair.

Pam, I think you're probably getting to the crux of the concern here. Chair, I don't know if you want to weigh in or if the clerk can weigh in so that we can just all be assured of this.

I think what members are looking for is confidence that this motion wouldn't be prohibitive to future motions or requests for work, and wouldn't be used for, say.... I can imagine in a future situation somebody making the argument, “Well, no, we can't go forward on that because we moved this motion at the beginning that says that only these studies were agreed to.”

I think we're all on the same page here in terms of the approach and the importance of doing this so that we can actually move swiftly to do our work. There could be a slight language alteration that would clarify that—maybe just the way your motion is already written, but inserting something like “but not limited to October 16”.

I think we are just looking to be assured that if there was a reason later on to pursue other areas of study or, in the context of an argument, if an emergency or something were to happen that we thought should supersede.... I think we are all just looking to be assured that this motion isn't restrictive in that way.

5:20 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal John McKay

I would interpret the motion as simply an organizing motion, if you will: “Let's get all the ideas on the table so that when we have a conversation, everyone gets a fair shot at making their argument as to why this should proceed or that should proceed.” That's how I interpret it.

Next is Gagan, and then Joël.

5:25 p.m.

Liberal

Gagan Sikand Liberal Mississauga—Streetsville, ON

Perhaps Joël should go first, because I was going to say, given the time constraints, Chair, that we should end it.

5:25 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal John McKay

We have five minutes, yes.

5:25 p.m.

Liberal

Gagan Sikand Liberal Mississauga—Streetsville, ON

Joël, would you like to go ahead?

5:25 p.m.

Liberal

Joël Lightbound Liberal Louis-Hébert, QC

I don't know how Pam feels about it, but given that we have a consensus to send in writing the motions that we'd like to see proceed, do we really need a motion at this point, or do we have consensus among ourselves that by October 16 we want to send all the motions, and then proceed swiftly with the vote?

5:25 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal John McKay

Gagan.