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.
5:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John McKay
There's only one motion on the floor. The mover of the original motion saw Kristina's motion as a friendly amendment and incorporated it, so there is really only one motion on the floor.
5:05 p.m.
Liberal
Pam Damoff Liberal Oakville North—Burlington, ON
I can't support it the way it's worded now, whereas I would have supported the previous motion the way it was.
The Parole Board of Canada, in the case of Cox, denied him parole every time he came until he had to be released. It's a very different case.
I tend to agree with Jack. If there was a study put forward for us to consider on how we rehabilitate people in prison, what kind of programming is done and what kind of enhancements might be made to programming to ensure that when someone does get out of prison, like this individual, they don't reoffend.... Rehabilitation and then being released from prison.... Almost everyone gets out of prison at some point, which is what happened with this individual, whereas Shannon's original motion was about a case where the Parole Board had let him out.
They're very different, so I can't support a motion that has incorporated the two of them, whereas I would have supported the motion if it was just on its own.
5:05 p.m.
Bloc
Kristina Michaud Bloc Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC
In light of the discussion, I'm wondering whether we can back up a little. Mrs. Stubbs can say that my amendment isn't all that friendly in the end and we can get back to the original motion.
As Mr. Harris suggested, I'll propose a separate motion to have the committee undertake a study of this case specifically. That's a good compromise.
5:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John McKay
Common sense and procedure don't always go together, but we'll see whether Shannon is prepared to say that this motion is unfriendly and therefore needs to be voted on separately. That's what she's saying, right?
5:05 p.m.
Conservative
Shannon Stubbs Conservative Lakeland, AB
Yes, I can just imagine how this would have gone over in 4-H, where we all had to adhere to Robert's Rules of Order, if we all went off the rails.
Given the discussion that's unfolded here.... I did perceive it as friendly, because I was thinking of it as a way of getting at the core issues of potential systemic issues across the board, and also recidivism, in the context of public safety.
However, I am more than happy, if it's amenable to our colleague, to go forward with the original motion that I had made, and then deal with this one separately, according to our discussion. I think they are all important issues.
5:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John McKay
I think we understand. What was friendly has now become unfriendly, so what is unfriendly is off the table temporarily while we vote on the original motion.
Am I on solid procedural ground here, Mr. Clerk, or am I leading us into some constitutional crisis?
5:10 p.m.
The Clerk
I believe we're okay. It sounds to me like you have unanimous consent to just revert back to the original motion, and that's fine.
5:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John McKay
Let me put the question, unless there's any other discussion.
Those in favour of the original motion—
5:10 p.m.
Liberal
Pam Damoff Liberal Oakville North—Burlington, ON
Sorry, Chair, could you read it, so we all make sure we know what we're voting on?
5:10 p.m.
Conservative
Shannon Stubbs Conservative Lakeland, AB
I have it. I think the clerk made, in the course of that discussion, an adjustment that I agreed with.
5:10 p.m.
Liberal
Pam Damoff Liberal Oakville North—Burlington, ON
Maybe the clerk could read it for us before we vote.
5:10 p.m.
The Clerk
That's not a problem. It was sent to you at 4:57, but I will read it as well.
It says:
That, pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the committee undertake a study of the Parole Board and the circumstances that led to a young woman’s death, 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.
5:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John McKay
I just want to make sure everybody got it, both verbally and in writing, before I call the question.
I see a point of order.
Go ahead, Mr. Harris.
5:10 p.m.
NDP
Jack Harris NDP St. John's East, NL
I wonder if there's a problem. I'm just pointing out that on the written version, the heading is “Resume a study and take into consideration evidence”, but the wording of the motion is actually the same as the one that Ms. Damoff had, which was that we “undertake a study”. I wonder whether that makes any difference.
This is a question for the clerk. The words “resume a study” and “undertake a study” have two different meanings, obviously, and we're basically starting from scratch if the other study was on a matter that was referred by the House.
5:10 p.m.
The Clerk
To resume a study is essentially the effect of the motion. The motion speaks of undertaking the study and then adopting all the evidence presented in a previous session, so it has the same effect as if you were resuming a study.
5:10 p.m.
NDP
Jack Harris NDP St. John's East, NL
Perfect. I'm happy. I just wanted to know that it wasn't an error.
5:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John McKay
Our clerk never makes errors.
I'm not sure he's right on that one, though. I would have phrased it as “undertake a study”, because we are not actually resuming the original study, but let's just keep it moving here.
Do we need a recorded vote?