Public Safety Committee on Feb. 22nd, 2021

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Okay.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Yes, Mr. Harris.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

Yes, I just—

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

I was acknowledged first.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Yes, okay.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

All I wanted to say is that I'm just hoping the proponent will be able to speak to the amendment, that we'll allow Richard Bragdon to address these issues.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Sure, that's no problem.

Is yours a point of order, Mr. Harris?

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

It is indeed, Chair; that's what I raised.

I believe Madame Michaud is actually reading from the earlier amendment, NDP-1, which was delivered in a different way from how it was assembled, but we didn't notice it. NDP-1b is back to the way it was. The last several words that she read out refer to “specifically designed to reduce recidivism”. She has to go to NDP-1b, in other words. The last words are “have access to appropriate programs that will help reduce recidivism”, as opposed to being specifically designed for that purpose.

I believe you were reading from the wrong version of NDP-1. It should be NDP-1b, and maybe you don't have it in front of you.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Now you're addressing your remarks to Madame Michaud. Is that correct?

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

I don't believe she did, because she was reading from something else.

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

Mr. Harris is right. I was reading the first version of his amendment. We should instead at the end read “to appropriate programs that will help reduce recidivism” in my subamendment.

It doesn't change what I propose removing from the amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Okay.

As I see it, Madame Michaud's motion is to be debated first, and then voted on, and then we'll move to Mr. Harris's motion, and debate it, and then we would proceed.

First of all, I want to clarify with Mr. Bragdon before I call for debate. Is Madame Michaud's motion, as read into the record, acceptable to you?

[Richard Bragdon, Conservative, Tobique—Mactaquac, NB]

My understanding is that hers is reducing it back closer to the original text. I understand it is advocating for the removal of Mr. Harris's amendment, unless it was very expansive in nature or much more comprehensive. Mr. Chair, you can correct me if I'm wrong, but I want to make sure I'm clear on this. Madame Michaud's motion is to basically restore it to the original text.

I am totally fine with Mr. Harris's motion that he brought in, the NDP motion. We did discuss his intent earlier this week, and I think he updated the wording a bit here for this evening. I am totally fine with that. At the same time, if that doesn't receive the consent of the committee, I guess it reverts to the original documentation, and I can live with either one.

I don't know if that helps, Mr. Chair, but I'm good with Mr. Harris's motion as is.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

This is where it's a huge disadvantage for the chair not to have the documents in front of him, but I don't have a printer.

Anyway, let me confirm with the clerk that we understand each other so we're talking about the same thing.

Is Mr. Bragdon's interpretation of what's before the committee correct?

[The Legislative Clerk]

Yes. For greater clarity, Mr. Chair, would you like me to read it in English and in French?

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Oakville North—Burlington, ON]

I can't hear him, Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Can you try that again, Mr. Clerk?

[The Legislative Clerk]

Sure.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

There we are. That's much better.

[The Legislative Clerk]

I'm sorry about that.

For greater clarity, would you like me to read Mr. Harris's amendment, including Madame Michaud's subamendment? I can read it in both English and French and the committee will have the whole of the information.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

I think that would be helpful, but on the other hand, we do have to debate it in the reverse order, which is Michaud first and Harris second.

[The Legislative Clerk]

Exactly.

Including Madame Michaud's amendment, it would read in English, “evaluate and improve risk assessment instruments and procedures, and ensure that all people who are incarcerated have access to appropriate programs that will help reduce recidivism”.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Okay. That's the Michaud amendment.

[The Legislative Clerk]

Yes, exactly.