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
If that could be amended.... I don't know if we need to move that we amend this report to remove the words “by officers against female inmates” and replace it with the words “in federal prisons”.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John McKay
I think the clerk has already taken note of that.
Is there an agreement that this correction or change be made to the report? Okay.
Is there any other debate about the report as amended?
Kristina, did you want to debate further?
Bloc
Kristina Michaud Bloc Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC
I just wanted to know whether we had access to the written motion, because I don't remember receiving it, or maybe to the amendment as amended.
I just want to be sure of what we're voting on.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John McKay
It's not a new amendment. It's a correction to section (c) of paragraph 1, to amend it the way Mr. Harris wanted it amended. The subcommittee report was sent out to all members earlier in the day.
Bloc
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John McKay
Are you making an additional point? I thought we were asking for a vote at this point.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John McKay
Okay. I thought we had already.... We were asking for a vote as amended.
NDP
Jack Harris NDP St. John's East, NL
No, I want to amend it, but I just want a clarification on item number 7. It states:
That, the committee commence its study on the management and control of Canada's borders (opening and closure) and the government directives issued...following the study on the Correctional Services Canada.
I think there was a bit of a nuance to that in terms of what the committee decided, and it may influence people's decision as to whether to support this report. The intention was, given the fact that there had been an Auditor General's directive and report since the pandemic occurred, that there needed to be a bit of time to determine whether perhaps we should evaluate that those directives have been followed or have worked. I believe that was Pam's suggestion.
I think it was on that basis that it was agreed that we might have a single meeting sometime after.... It wasn't on May 27 or whatever date was proposed, but we would give it a little time and pick a date to have a meeting to do that evaluation.
That doesn't seem to me to be the same as saying that we shall commence the study that was proposed by the motion that Madam Michaud had proposed some time ago. I think that's a nuanced understanding that we had.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John McKay
Okay.
Can I call in our clerk at this point? He's much more up on this than I am.
Did you have an amendment or a clarification, Mark?
The Clerk of the Committee Mr. Mark D'Amore
Yes, Mr. Chair.
If the committee is so inclined, we can always add a reference specifically to the Auditor General's report that was indeed discussed on Monday.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John McKay
Would you put that in after “Correctional Services Canada”? Where would you put it?
Bloc
Kristina Michaud Bloc Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC
Mr. Chair, since this would be one meeting instead of a full study, perhaps we could put this before the study on the Correctional Service of Canada. That way, the agencies that were criticized by the Auditor General would have time to respond.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John McKay
Jack, did you want to respond to that?
First of all, let's deal with where the clerk would propose putting in this clarification. Then we can debate it from there.
How would it read, Mark, in your opinion?
The Clerk
If I understand correctly, if it's the committee's desire for a meeting to look at the Auditor General's report on the border management issues during the COVID-19 pandemic, we can just phrase it that way.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John McKay
Is it that the committee have one meeting, then, on the management and control of Canada's borders? I'm not quite sure I'm following this.
The Clerk
I'm sorry. It would be that the committee have a meeting to discuss the Auditor General's report, or to invite the Auditor General. It's however the committee wants to do it, because the discussion involved seeing what the fallout of the Auditor General's report would be after that time had elapsed.
It's a question of how to frame it. The discussion was within the context of the study that was agreed to by the committee last fall, regarding the border situation as impacted by the pandemic.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John McKay
I recall a conversation, but I don't recall whether this captures the conversation, though.
Pam, please go ahead.
Liberal
Pam Damoff Liberal Oakville North—Burlington, ON
Yes, it was to have one meeting. I thought it was to discuss the Auditor General's report and the response to that report on the management and control of the borders.
Liberal
NDP
Jack Harris NDP St. John's East, NL
Yes. We talked about the fact that there was an Auditor General's report, which was fairly new, and that it would be useful to understand whether or not the government had improved things or done anything to fix the problems identified.
However, to do it right away might be too soon. If we waited until the second week in June, or the end of the first week in June, or something like that, we might be able to get a proper assessment as to whether or not things had improved or changed. I'm not trying to put it off, but I want to provide enough of a gap to allow that to happen.
If the committee believes we're ready to that now, not to hear from the Auditor General but to find out whether or not the Auditor General's recommendations have been, in fact, implemented or taken into account.... I don't know if we need to hear from the Auditor General in that regard. We would presumably just look at the report.