Evidence of meeting #34 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 csc.
A recording is available from Parliament.
5:40 p.m.
NDP
Jack Harris NDP St. John's East, NL
That was the point of order I wanted to make.
I think there may not be unanimous consent for the order that was put forward, but there seems to be various proposals as to how we might accomplish some of the things that are contained in it. I'll leave it to others to suggest those.
5:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John McKay
The chair appreciates the assistance in making these rulings.
With that, I see both Mr. Motz and Madam Damoff. I don't recollect who's first, but since I'm having so much assistance with the rulings, I'll ask Mr. Motz. I'm sure he'll be of great assistance.
5:45 p.m.
Conservative
Glen Motz Conservative Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB
Pam's hand was up before mine. She can go ahead.
5:45 p.m.
Liberal
Pam Damoff Liberal Oakville North—Burlington, ON
Chair, I was just going to suggest an alternative.
I'm disappointed that there isn't consensus to do the two meetings. To Jack's point about the National Council of Canadian Muslims and CIJA—the long name is escaping me right now, I'm sorry—I suggest that next week we have them for one meeting for 90 minutes, with 45 minutes for each party, whichever works best for the clerk to do. We would then take 30 minutes at that meeting to hopefully come up with some consensus for a motion that we could table in the House, based on their recommendations. We would listen to one and then the other for 45 minutes each and take 30 minutes to draft something for the House. Then we would do the border study.
I would leave it to the clerk as to when witnesses were available and whether that was Monday or Wednesday next week. I do think we need to get to this next week. That would then leave June 21 and 23 for the Levesque study.
I would have to amend my motion, Chair—
5:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John McKay
I believe you need to have unanimous consent to amend your motion.
Is that correct, Chair, if she's amending her own motion?
5:45 p.m.
The Clerk
You're the chair, Mr. Chair.
5:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John McKay
Yes. Well, I have plenty of assistance, only one of which is competent.
Mr. Clerk.
5:45 p.m.
The Clerk
Normally, to amend your own motion, you would require unanimous consent of the House, because it belongs to the committee now, or somebody else may move the amendment.
5:45 p.m.
Liberal
Pam Damoff Liberal Oakville North—Burlington, ON
Can I ask somebody else to move it?
Jack, do you want to move it for me?
5:45 p.m.
The Clerk
I'm sorry, Mr. Chair, but Madam Larouche is trying to get your attention.
5:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John McKay
I apologize to Madam Larouche. I can't see her from this vantage point.
This is where we are: Ms. Damoff needs unanimous consent to amend her motion.
5:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John McKay
Okay. So that's denied.
We're back to the original motion.
With that, I have Mr. Motz, Madam Larouche, Mr. Lightbound and Mr. Harris.
Mr. Motz.
5:45 p.m.
Conservative
Glen Motz Conservative Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB
Chair, I thought I had a good idea of where we were going, up until Pam's motion. Maybe I should have gone first. Now I'm really confused as to the actual timeline that we have remaining for the next four meetings.
I have something to say about it. Could I first get clarity from the clerk on exactly what has been proposed, please?
5:45 p.m.
Conservative
Glen Motz Conservative Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB
For the next four meetings, yes, which is Pam's motion; I just need clarity on that.
5:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John McKay
Yes. Before Pam's motion, we had the border study on Monday, Levesque on Wednesday and the following Monday, and the IMVE study on the following Wednesday.
5:45 p.m.
NDP
