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.
NDP
Jack Harris NDP St. John's East, NL
If we're talking about the work for the balance of today's meeting, if the intention is that people want to move motions for studies, then Pam's was a particular motion that revived a study, which I think is in a different category. If people have new studies to do, and perhaps the one that Shannon had with respect to the study that was under way, they are in a different category. If there are new studies going on, I would propose....
I mean, I have five suggested studies. I didn't come with motions today and I don't intend to present them today. They are things we could discuss at a meeting of the steering committee. One or two of them will maybe survive, or maybe none of them will. At least we could come back with the recommendations to the committee, and then the whole of the committee could deliberate on the value of each individual study.
However, to try to deal with them today, without everybody participating, I think would be defeating the collegiality that we talked about, the collaborative nature of the work we do. I know that everybody has pet ideas. I know I certainly have lots of them. I don't think that today is the right time to do it.
If we had an opportunity for everybody to present their motions so we could have them together all at once when we're deliberating the priority that the committee as a whole wants to give them, I think that would be a more appropriate way to go. That's my view. It may not meet with the approval of the committee, but I think that's a better way to proceed.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John McKay
I might well agree with you, but Glen has his motion up.
I think I'm hearing something.
Liberal
Conservative
Glen Motz Conservative Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB
Thank you, Chair.
I apologize to the committee. I should have known.... In any event, a new headset works wonders.
Chair, if I may, I would like to propose the following motion: That, pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security request that the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness appear for a full two-hour meeting, at his earliest possible convenience, to answer questions about the Prime Minister's mandate letter to him; that the minister appear at the meeting exclusively for the purpose of the mandate letter and no other matters; and that this meeting be televised.
That's my motion.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John McKay
The motion is proper and in order, and this is what the committee is discussing.
Everyone has heard the motion. Is there any discussion?
Pam.
Liberal
Pam Damoff Liberal Oakville North—Burlington, ON
I have a question.
I know that when the minister appears before committee on other issues, like estimates, questions veer into whatever is in the headlines that week. I don't know how you say he can only talk about the mandate letter.
I think the minister would be happy to come. Normally he only comes for an hour, so I would propose an amendment to make it one hour.
I would remind our colleagues that if we're going to talk about his mandate letter, which I'm sure he would love to talk about, we stick to the mandate letter and don't use it as an opportunity to question what's in the headlines that week.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John McKay
First of all, Pam, are you moving that as an amendment to Glen's motion?
Liberal
Pam Damoff Liberal Oakville North—Burlington, ON
Normally, the ministers would come for an hour and officials would come for an hour, so two hours seems a bit excessive for the minister. They don't normally come for the full two hours.
Conservative
Glen Motz Conservative Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB
Well, Pam is friendly. The suggestion might be unfriendly. I think the fact that he hasn't been at this committee.... COVID has prevented that since he got his mandate letter.
Liberal
Pam Damoff Liberal Oakville North—Burlington, ON
He actually has been to the committee, with all due respect.
Conservative
Conservative
Glen Motz Conservative Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB
Fair enough, but I still propose that, because his portfolio is so broad and there are so many things going on, not only with respect to this issue we talked about with systemic racism and the parole, but also with respect to emergency preparedness and matters of public safety all across the spectrum, it would be great to have as much time as possible with the minister. Since we have only a two-hour window, having him here the entire time to answer questions, as opposed to his officials, would be of benefit to the committee members.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John McKay
I'm working on the presumption that Pam is friendly and the amendment is not, so after the discussion we'll have to vote on the amendment to the motion first.
Is there any further discussion?
Pam.
Liberal
Pam Damoff Liberal Oakville North—Burlington, ON
I have a question again. I'm assuming the opposition is going to want the minister to appear on estimates. Is it the will of the member that the minister come for two hours on his mandate letter and then come back to talk about estimates? I'm sure there's a timeline on those. That's another reason. He did appear in the summer before the committee for one hour with his officials.
That's just a question. Does he want the minister to come for the main estimates as well as for his mandate letter, or would they be combined as one?
Liberal
Conservative
