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.
Liberal
Pam Damoff Liberal Oakville North—Burlington, ON
I won't get into the dates because that's...according to Jack.
The work would be the ideologically motivated violent extremism study. It would be finalizing the racism study. We would have Minister Blair and Commissioner Lucki come to deal with Bastarache. We would review the Levesque study. We would do the border study, and we would do the CSC study.
I have a potential schedule to do that. As I said, we would shorten the IMVE study to three meetings.
Thanks, Chair.
Conservative
Shannon Stubbs Conservative Lakeland, AB
Thanks, Chair.
I think I'm sort of out of turn here, but before we completely dispense with our discussion on the motion, I just wanted to add that, after we've dealt with the timing issue, I want to make what I hope will be taken as a friendly amendment to expand the scope of the motion, so that we can get the most meaningful work out of it possible.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John McKay
I'm holding on by my fingernails to the proper order here, but what is on the—
Conservative
Shannon Stubbs Conservative Lakeland, AB
I'll just give you a heads-up that I want to sneak in. Between the timing issue and the final vote, I'll want to sneak in there.
NDP
Jack Harris NDP St. John's East, NL
Thank you, Chair.
I was looking in detail at what it is we're trying to accomplish here, and I think it's very unlikely that we can get a report done on the IMVE, or on the CSC, both of which we've agreed that we want to do.
Pam has made a very strong case, which I think we all agreed with last week, that the IMVE study should be looked at as quickly as possible. Looking at the fact that we have 10 meetings left after today, realistically, the sensible thing in my view is to devote two of them, guaranteed, to IMVE and two of them to CSC. We've already committed to one on racism, and hopefully, we'll finish that. If we don't, we might need part of another meeting.
We've committed to one on the border study. We are certainly committed to one on the Bastarache, i.e., the Lucki and Blair meeting, and drafting instructions, potentially. We also appear to be committed to at least two meetings on Levesque, and I hope we get a report out of that. If we do that, that's nine meetings, leaving one floating meeting that we could use for something else.
In the fall, if there is a fall, we can either complete the CSC study and do a report, complete the IMVE study and do a report, or if we don't get the Levesque study finished, we could do a report. However, we could commit to finishing the racism study and the Bastarache study, and to trying to do the Levesque study if we can.
If there's a meeting left over, we can have either IMVE or CSC as that third meeting. That would be a compromise of everybody saying, well, we're not really going to finish three reports. We'd be lucky if we finished racism, Bastarache and Levesque, and that might be difficult.
Otherwise, we're not going to be able to accomplish what we've agreed we want to touch on between now and June 23. That's my proposal. As to when those meetings will take place, I have ideas about that too, but that's just a detail. If we can get an agreement that we'll have two for sure on IMVE, two for sure on CSC, one border, one racism, two Levesque and one Bastarache, that takes nine meetings with one up in the air.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John McKay
Before I recognize Pam, I want to bring us back to some sort of order. The Damoff motion is on the floor. Michaud had an amendment, which I am now assuming is subsumed into the subamendment of Motz, and we haven't dealt with the Motz amendment.
I would like to know from the committee which way to proceed here. Do you want to bring the Motz amendment to a vote, or is it a withdrawal on Glen's part and an amendment to the Damoff motion to be put forward? Is it in Pam's fashion or Jack's fashion? It's one or the other. I'm open as to how to proceed with this because I don't want to lose the procedural niceties of the committee.
I see Pam's hand up, and then Jack's hand up.
Liberal
Pam Damoff Liberal Oakville North—Burlington, ON
I was going to say, Chair, it's hard to get into.... In essence, I agree with Jack. I think we're both on the same page on this. It's just a matter of order, but in essence, I don't want to remove that we report to the House for CSC or IMVE. The assumption is that we're coming back in September and that we can finish reports on these if need be, but I think we want to get this done. Unless we deal with Jack and Kristina's motions, it's hard to move forward with this.
Liberal
Pam Damoff Liberal Oakville North—Burlington, ON
With what Jack, Kristina and I have all been talking about in terms of trying to get all of this work done...but it does require us to deal with the motions that are on the floor before we can actually have a fulsome discussion on where we're going.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John McKay
I'll look to Glen. Can you see your way clear to withdraw your subamendment?
Conservative
Glen Motz Conservative Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB
I'm looking for the document that lays out the new proposed schedule.
Liberal
Pam Damoff Liberal Oakville North—Burlington, ON
We can't deal with that until we deal with the motions.
Conservative
Glen Motz Conservative Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB
I'm not prepared to withdraw my amendment until I have an understanding of what the proposed dates are, what that looks like and what we are going to set aside and when. I need to know what that all looks like, so I can't.
I feel very strongly that we need to get at the stuff that we wanted, but Pam, if you're amicable to consider a friendly amendment on the main motion, I'm certainly prepared to withdraw my amendment to Kristina's, and move with the timeline that I thought I heard you propose at some point in time.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John McKay
Let me just look to the clerk to maintain some procedural regularity.
The Motz amendment is still alive. Pam is proposing a subamendment that we would deal with first. Then we would deal with the Motz amendment, and the main motion as amended or not. Can Pam amend the motion as it is presently on the floor?
The Clerk
Technically, you're supposed to dispose of the subamendment, and if it's to get more information before there's a request for withdrawal, then you could proceed that way. The subamendment is still, technically, before the committee, or the amendment, I should say, is still before the committee.
Liberal
The Clerk
No, they have to be dealt with successively, because otherwise they can overlap and contradict.
Liberal
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John McKay
One way or another, we have to deal with Glen's subamendment before we can deal with the main motion.
Go ahead, Glen.
Conservative
Glen Motz Conservative Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB
Thank you, Chair. I'm just looking at the proposed changes. My issue, last time, was about whether we were prepared to have the extremism study starting today. We weren't. We aren't. Are we prepared to have it starting on Wednesday? I would hope so. I hope we would be prepared if that's what's being proposed, and if Kristina is.... The 10th was my hang-up, that we weren't ready for it.
As I said before, Pam, I wanted to withdraw my amendment to Kristina's motion. If we want to expand this study, as Shannon briefly articulated.... I think it's such an important issue that we probably should, so we're not limited in our scope. We'll get to that when we get to it.
I'm prepared, Mr. Chair, to withdraw my amendment to Kristina's motion, given there is some movement on the flexibility of the schedule, and we can get at some of the things that we need to get at. That's what our purpose was last time, to make sure we get at the things that we really have on our plate.
(Amendment withdrawn [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Liberal