Evidence of meeting #2 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 amendment.
A video is available from Parliament.
11:15 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Jim Carr
It's the first I've heard of a possible Friday meeting. At the will of the committee, we can discuss that.
Clerk, are you aware of the possibility of a Friday meeting?
11:15 a.m.
The Clerk
I have not received any direction, sir.
11:15 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Jim Carr
Okay.
Well, let's deal with the issues one at a time here. I gather that the wording of the House, which asks the committee to meet with the CBSA and the RCMP for three hours at its convenience, gives the committee some discretion on how many meetings it might take to reach those three hours. Looking at the issues sequentially, the first order of business is to deal with Standing Order 106(4) and the amendments that arise from this discussion. We're involved in discussing the first amendment now.
Are there any other comments about the first amendment? Okay.
Clerk, how do you want to proceed with the vote?
December 14th, 2021 / 11:15 a.m.
Conservative
11:20 a.m.
Liberal
11:20 a.m.
Conservative
11:20 a.m.
Conservative
Dane Lloyd Conservative Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I've listened intently to the amendments twice, but I learn by reading, and I still haven't seen a copy of the amendment. I am still a bit confused about what the amendment is. It's a Standing Order practice of the committee that the chair has to submit the amendment to the committee before it can be voted upon. I still haven't seen a copy of it. I've listened twice, but I'm still not 100% sure what this amendment is really proposing.
I would hope that any future amendments that the member will be proposing today would also be distributed so that we can avoid going through this confusion again.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
11:20 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Jim Carr
Yes. I accept your point. I agree that members of the committee should have a printed copy of the amendments as proposed.
What's necessary, Mr. Clerk, to make that happen?
11:20 a.m.
The Clerk
I think maybe Ms. Damoff has an answer to that question, sir. She has raised her hand.
11:20 a.m.
Liberal
Pam Damoff Liberal Oakville North—Burlington, ON
The members do have a copy of the revised motion in French and English, but it's without the track changes. They do have a copy of the revised motion in both official languages in front of them. They do have everything there. It is always nice to have track changes, but it's not required.
As I said, Chair, I do have it in English, and I'm endeavouring to get it in French with track changes, but the members do have the amended motion in front of them.
11:20 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Jim Carr
Do the members have an amended motion in front of them?
That's “yes”. Unless I hear from any member of the committee who does not have the amended motion in both official languages in front of them, I will assume that it is in front of members and that we can then proceed.
Is that okay with everybody? Okay.
Clerk, I see an empty chair there—maybe that's because you are running around distributing pieces of paper—but we have had a discussion of Ms. Damoff's first amendment, and I'm now prepared to call for a vote....
I see another hand up.
Go ahead, Ms. Dancho.
11:20 a.m.
Conservative
Raquel Dancho Conservative Kildonan—St. Paul, MB
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Further to my last comment, I'll just clarify. In the original motion, paragraph (a) says the following from Ms. Michaud: “hold, by December 17, 2021”—which is this Friday—“at least one (1) additional meeting to hear from Royal Canadian Mounted Police officials for a duration of three (3) hours”.
In my previous comment, what I was asking about is that Ms. Damoff's motion takes out the requirement to have the meeting by December 17, this Friday, and then adds the CBSA, so we have to have the CBSA and RCMP together before February 4, whereas Ms. Michaud's original motion said we'd have to have the RCMP by this December 17, Friday.
I want the committee to be clear that the amendment will in essence ensure that we will not see the RCMP before we rise for break, and I just want to make sure that this was the aim of Ms. Michaud in her motion.
11:20 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Jim Carr
I think we heard from Madame Michaud. We'll hear from her again, if she has more to add, and also from Ms. Damoff.
Go ahead, Madame Michaud.
11:20 a.m.
Bloc
Kristina Michaud Bloc Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC
I'd just like a small clarification.
The document that has been distributed to us is Ms. Damoff's amended motion, correct?
11:20 a.m.
Bloc
Kristina Michaud Bloc Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC
I see that the length of the testimony would be changed, so I wonder if that is in the amendment that is being proposed now or if it is a new amendment that will be proposed later. It's okay if the Royal Canadian Mounted Police are delayed, but I just want to make sure that we get them for three hours, as planned, as well as the Canada Border Services Agency and the union. I just want to make sure that the first amendment we are debating does not refer to hours. Then I would have no problem with it.
11:20 a.m.
Liberal
Pam Damoff Liberal Oakville North—Burlington, ON
Chair, I was putting it in the time of our committee meetings, which is two hours; however, if the member feels strongly about three hours, I won't move that part of the amendment.
In essence, right now we're only discussing (a), but assuming that the clerk can do three hours and that the committee can do three hours at a time, I won't move that portion of (b) when we get to that.
11:25 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Jim Carr
I see that Mr. Van Popta has his hand up to add to the discussion.
Go ahead. The floor is yours.
11:25 a.m.
Conservative
Tako Van Popta Conservative Langley—Aldergrove, BC
Thank you.
Part of my question has been answered already, but my concern is that the original motion from Ms. Michaud is for three hours for the RCMP and the subsequent meeting is for three hours with CBSA and union representatives. Now it's all being squeezed into one meeting of two hours. Maybe it becomes three hours, but still, there are three sets of witnesses in one meeting over two or three hours when it was going to be six hours originally.
Is my understanding correct of the amendment and of the original motion? Also, what does Ms. Michaud say about what is essentially a reduction in the time that's being allocated to a very important study?
11:25 a.m.
Bloc
Kristina Michaud Bloc Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC
Ms. Damoff might be in a better position to clarify this. My understanding was that while we would not receive the RCMP representatives before Christmas, we could receive them after Christmas for a three-hour period, as per the original motion.