Evidence of meeting #13 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 report.
A video is available from Parliament.
5:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John McKay
Okay.
On other witnesses on the Levesque report, are we talking about lots of witnesses, a few witnesses, or no witnesses? There doesn't seem to be a huge appetite to do much beyond what we are doing currently, but I'm open to that.
5:25 p.m.
Liberal
Pam Damoff Liberal Oakville North—Burlington, ON
Chair, can we just vote on whether we continue that study or not?
5:25 p.m.
Liberal
Pam Damoff Liberal Oakville North—Burlington, ON
I think we all agree that the racism one is a priority, and we can't do that until we actually get the report. Perhaps we could just vote on whether or not we extend meetings on Levesque. If we vote to continue with the meetings, then we can decide to book witnesses.
5:25 p.m.
NDP
Jack Harris NDP St. John's East, NL
I have a comment about that. Before Christmas, it was very important for us to do this study on that, and I'm assuming there were witnesses lined up who might be available. Now, it's not really my study, if you know what I mean, but the individuals who put it forward were concerned about getting particular witnesses. Whether they need them now or not, I suppose, is really up to them. I haven't really heard a definitive answer from them on that, so I don't know about voting on it in the absence of Mr. Paul-Hus. It was his study, was it not?
5:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John McKay
It was a referral from the House initially and then it expired with prorogation or whatever it was, and the committee adopted it. It's entirely the committee's prerogative to do as it sees fit with this. Pam's motion is in order. I would regard Jack's intervention as debate. Is there any other debate before I call Pam's motion?
5:25 p.m.
Liberal
Pam Damoff Liberal Oakville North—Burlington, ON
Just to clarify, John, the motion is to finish the Levesque study.
5:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John McKay
Yes, it is to finish the Levesque study on the witnesses we've heard to date, which includes the witnesses in 2020.
5:25 p.m.
Bloc
Kristina Michaud Bloc Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC
Before we vote, Mr. Chair, could the clerk tell us how many witnesses are left on the list? I can't get my hands on it.
5:25 p.m.
The Clerk
There are about twenty witnesses left on the list.
5:25 p.m.
Conservative
Shannon Stubbs Conservative Lakeland, AB
Well, Mr. Chair, it's just that there are remaining witnesses who we thought were important to include on the Levesque study. Also, of course, we as a group had agreed to two to three more meetings on the Levesque study, which would make it fall in line with the number of meetings on the other studies that we've conducted so far as a committee. To support this motion would of course reverse the agreement that we had before Christmas.
I'm not sure that, even given the session we just had, all of our concerns are allayed and that every aspect has been addressed. It seems to me that both in order to do the victim, her family and her loved ones justice and in order to try to get at even farther what can be put in place to prevent this kind of thing in the future, it would behoove us to take the time we had dedicated to hear from all of the witnesses we suggested and complete this properly.
5:25 p.m.
Liberal
5:25 p.m.
Conservative
5:25 p.m.
Liberal
5:25 p.m.
Conservative
Damien Kurek Conservative Battle River—Crowfoot, AB
Here's my question. Is this motion even in order, since this is, I believe, an unofficial gathering of the committee that's deciding upon an agreed-upon and already voted on motion that determined a certain number of set meetings? I would ask for a ruling from you, Mr. Chair, about whether the motion is in order in the context in which we're debating it.
5:30 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John McKay
Well, the committee is king or queen of its own procedures, so what the committee creates, the committee can uncreate. I think the—
5:30 p.m.
Liberal
Pam Damoff Liberal Oakville North—Burlington, ON
Mr. Chair, I will withdraw the motion. Maybe we should just have it done at the subcommittee.
5:30 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John McKay
Okay. It confirms my prejudices about having 12 people in a meeting trying to go forward.
I am still stuck with what we are going to do on Wednesday. Can you give me some guidance here? Pam's motion has been withdrawn. Therefore, the Levesque study is still in order and we could call witnesses, if you wish.
5:30 p.m.
NDP
Jack Harris NDP St. John's East, NL
I guess we could do that, if there are witnesses available for Wednesday.
If we want to have a look at the unanimous consent motion on Wednesday and have a little business meeting.... I don't know whom we would call as a witness on Wednesday for that, for example. That's pretty short notice to start something that neither Pam nor I have actually read yet.
5:30 p.m.
Liberal