Evidence of meeting #106 for Public Safety and National Security in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was point.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Liberal
Liberal
Taleeb Noormohamed Liberal Vancouver Granville, BC
The chair asked if the committee would like to vote. The majority of members of the committee said that yes, they would like to vote. That was in response to the chair, not to Mr. Genuis or his unanimous consent motion. The chair asked if we would like to vote on it, not whether we gave UC. Those are two very different things. I'm not a dummy; I understand the difference between UC and the request for a vote.
Conservative
Doug Shipley Conservative Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte, ON
Chair, on a point of order, I haven't piped up a lot here in the two hours, and you've been very liberal with your points of order, but I think we're really straying away now in debate. Maybe we could just finalize.
Mr. Genuis is bringing up some very valid points here. I'm enjoying his dissertation, and if he could keep going on that, it would be great.
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
Thank you, Chair.
I thank the members for their good wishes, but I was actually very shocked by Mr. McKinnon's comment that these arguments had no merit. Regardless of what he thinks of me, I was reading—
Liberal
Ron McKinnon Liberal Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, BC
On a point of order, I did not say that they had no merit whatsoever; I said they had no merit to the motion he had proposed.
I'm ready to vote on that motion, whether or not we should do as you say. It becomes moot the longer we go on with this today, because there's no time to do anything. I think if Mr. Genuis had any courage and any respect for his own motion, he would let us vote on it after speaking to it for an hour and a half.
Conservative
Doug Shipley Conservative Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte, ON
Chair, on a point of order, we are now getting into personal comments and insults, and I really don't think that's appropriate. Maybe Mr. McKinnon wants to take those back.
Liberal
Ron McKinnon Liberal Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, BC
On a point of order, there were no personal insults in there. I just don't believe he has any regard for his own motion or else he'd let us vote on it.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Heath MacDonald
Mr. Shipley, thank you.
Thank you, Mr. McKinnon. We'll leave it there. Mr. Shipley, we'll leave it there.
Mr. Genuis, can you continue and be very specific in what you're speaking about, please? Stay on the motion.
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
Thank you. I was blessed with a thick skin, so we'll just continue.
Although he has since tried to qualify that, it appears that Mr. McKinnon does not think the arguments I've raised have merit or relevance. I'm fairly surprised that he is so dismissive of the arguments that I have raised because—
Liberal
Ron McKinnon Liberal Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, BC
On a point of order, I did not say they had no relevance or merit whatsoever. I said that in relation to the motion before us, they're not relevant. They don't matter to this particular motion.
The question is whether Mr. Genuis wants to go to the motion he proposed, which is to go to a specific order of business and deal with these very items, or not? He seems to have little confidence in being able to do that; otherwise, he'd let us vote on the matter.
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
As I was saying, the member opposite has dismissed these substantial arguments that have been made as either not meritorious or not relevant to the question of the Bernardo prison transfer—
Liberal
Ron McKinnon Liberal Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, BC
On a point of order, I made no reference to whether they were relevant to the Bernardo transfer. They are not relevant to the motion that is before this committee at this time, which is to go to a specific order of business.
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
That specific order of business is the Bernardo transfer.
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
That might be something we can get unanimous consent on.
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
Mr. Chair, at the risk of getting accused of repetition, let me say it again for Mr. McKinnon's benefit: This is a motion to proceed to the consideration of a particular item. Therefore, the nature of that particular item is central to this discussion. It is not in the general ambit of relevance; it is directly on the bull's eye of the target of relevance. What we are talking about is proceeding to the consideration of an amendment, and that amendment is about the Bernardo prison transfer.
As I have said very clearly—and I hope members have heard me on this—Conservatives will insist, and will use the procedural tools that allow us to insist, that we complete the report on the Bernardo prison transfer. Like the information about the prison transfer itself, this is not something that can be buried again by politicians who are not sufficiently concerned with the rights of victims to know what is happening in cases that are relevant to them and to have their voices included.
It is profoundly disrespectful to the witnesses we heard on this subject to suggest that their views are not meritorious or relevant or to suggest to them that having made the effort and gone through, I suspect, the challenge and the pressure of testifying, somehow the committee would receive that evidence but then do nothing with it.
I think that's offensive and wrong. Members of the public would expect that the sacrifice and the effort that went into providing that testimony would lead to substantive reports and recommendations from the committee—
Liberal