Evidence of meeting #28 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
I have a point of order, Chair.
I don't know how we can have a meeting on Monday and call it May 5 so that we can schedule something for May 10 on May 10. It doesn't compute.
I believe the chair's ruling is correct that, if we suspend the debate and adjourn the meeting, then the debate is still on deck on Monday. Am I wrong?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John McKay
I don't think you're wrong, because I can do it either way, but there's some anxiety that the motion will be lost if I don't suspend this meeting as well as suspend the debate. I thought I could adjourn the meeting and suspend the debate, and that would be by operation of the rules of procedure, but I'm perfectly happy to suspend the meeting and suspend the debate, since we have run out of unanimous consent to keep this meeting going anyway.
Given that there may be some anxiety as to whether my initial thought is incorrect, I'm perfectly happy to suspend the meeting and suspend the debate.
Liberal
Pam Damoff Liberal Oakville North—Burlington, ON
I'm sorry, Chair. You're suspending the meeting, not the debate, so we will suspend the meeting, and then it will continue on Monday.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John McKay
The debate is by definition suspended, and you will still have to initiate the debate again. It will be the first item on the floor.
Liberal
Pam Damoff Liberal Oakville North—Burlington, ON
We will suspend the meeting and we will suspend debate. Is that what you're saying? We have run out of time for the meeting, because Jack's getting hangry.
Liberal
Darren Fisher Liberal Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS
That is the way I read the committee's chapter in the green book, Mr. Chair, that the meeting must be suspended rather than adjourned.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John McKay
Okay. As I say, I'm perfectly happy to suspend. I'm not sure I agree. As I initially interpreted it, it was to adjourn the meeting and suspend the debate, but if it's more comfortable for people if I suspend the meeting, I'm perfectly happy to do so, and the motion by definition is suspended.
Conservative
Conservative
Glen Motz Conservative Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB
Does that mean, as someone has suggested, that the annoying ParlVu music will continue for three days until we come back on Monday, because the meeting is only suspended and not cancelled or adjourned?
Liberal
Conservative
Glen Motz Conservative Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB
No, I'm talking about the poor people who have been monitoring this on ParlVu, and that music will keep playing now for the next three days.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John McKay
I see those people. I feel badly for them already. In order to provide a comfort level for all of us, the meeting is suspended.
[The meeting was suspended at 6:27 p.m., Wednesday, May 5]
[The meeting resumed at 3:35 p.m., Monday, May 10]
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John McKay
Good afternoon, colleagues.
We are resuming the debate that was suspended last Wednesday. We were discussing the Damoff motion, which had a subamendment put forward by Ms. Michaud, then a subsequent subamendment put forward by Mr. Motz. Technically, I think we are to be discussing the subamendments.
I want to clarify, between Mr. Motz and Ms. Michaud, whether we still have two subamendments or we are talking about one.
Kristina.
Bloc
Kristina Michaud Bloc Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC
I think it would be wise to adopt the wording proposed by Mr. Motz because I hadn't made it clear what I wanted. It was a time management issue. After talking to the Liberals, I think Ms. Damoff wanted to suggest something else, so I'll let her speak before we see what we are going to do with that amendment.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John McKay
Unless it is formally withdrawn, we are still dealing with two subamendments.
I saw Pam's hand first, then Jack's and then Shannon's.
Liberal
Pam Damoff Liberal Oakville North—Burlington, ON
Thanks, Chair.
Thanks, Kristina.
In the spirit of co-operation, which we were trying to get at the last meeting, there were comments made by all parties that if we just work together.... I know there have been conversations about how we can make this work so that we can get everything done, being respectful of timing for translations and everything else.
With regard to the amendment, I would propose changing my motion to three meetings that would be held this Wednesday, May 12, May 31 and June 9. If everyone has a pen, I could go through a suggested schedule.
Would that be okay, Chair? It might make it easier for conversation.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John McKay
Technically, that's not in order. I think it's useful information that there have been discussions, which I was encouraging last Wednesday, but we are bound by the order in which the motions and the—
Liberal
Pam Damoff Liberal Oakville North—Burlington, ON
Chair, part of the motion before us is following all the work in front of us, so perhaps I could just go through the order of work in front of us under that part.
That was Glen's part of the amendment. Isn't that right?
Liberal
NDP
Jack Harris NDP St. John's East, NL
My point of order is that we have a motion that we can discuss. Pam is right that we can talk about dates and things like that, but if we have a motion on the floor, to get into that level of detail, perhaps we can have a more general discussion about what it is we want to accomplish.
We have 10 meetings left between now and when we rise. Some of them may disappear. Some of them we know we're committed to. The actual schedule as to what happens on what day probably should be filled in once we've agreed to what we hope to accomplish between now and the end of June.
Liberal
Pam Damoff Liberal Oakville North—Burlington, ON
Chair, are we discussing the point of order? Am I finished now? Can I not talk about the work that we want to do?