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.
12:25 p.m.
Liberal
Ron McKinnon Liberal Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I want to speak up in favour of this motion as well.
It often happens towards the end of a Parliament that when reports are filed, there is not enough time for the government to respond. This reactivates that clock and gives the government a chance to respond substantively as requested.
I'm 100% in favour.
12:25 p.m.
Bloc
Kristina Michaud Bloc Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC
I'm fine. I obtained my clarification.
Thank you.
12:25 p.m.
Conservative
Tako Van Popta Conservative Langley—Aldergrove, BC
Thank you.
I too speak in support of the motion. I was part of the study last time, together with Pam and Kristina. We did a lot of work. We saw a lot of witnesses. There were 19 meetings, according to the summary, and the report had over 50 witnesses and 42 recommendations, so it was a lot of work.
It's an important study. I think it needs to be brought forward.
12:30 p.m.
Conservative
Dane Lloyd Conservative Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I don't want to digress too much from spirit of the committee on this, which is an important study. I'm concerned that between the completion of this report and today, we had an election.
I know this was an issue that was discussed at the doors. I'm not asking us to reopen the study, but I might appreciate.... You're removing your subamendment to remove the dissenting reports for December 15. You're maybe putting this forward as a friendly amendment, but I'd like an opportunity to have some time to review the report again and maybe have an opportunity to provide a slightly changed version, if necessary, because we did have an election.
It's important to demonstrate to Canadians that elections matter and that issues that are talked about during elections should be reflected in our report, rather than just accepting a report from the previous Parliament without any opportunity for a review.
Those are my thoughts.
12:30 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Jim Carr
Is there other commentary in response to Mr. Lloyd's intervention?
I see Ms. Damoff.
12:30 p.m.
Liberal
Pam Damoff Liberal Oakville North—Burlington, ON
I'll just say that if you start opening it up to adding dissenting reports, you could open it to redoing the whole report. A lot of work was done on it. The parties did submit their dissenting reports. I think that if we want to embark on a new study on systemic racism and do new reports on it.... I think as a whole report, the dissenting report is responding to recommendations that were in the report and the witness testimony, so I don't think we should be changing it.
If Mr. MacGregor wants to add that back in, I'd like to hear from him.
12:30 p.m.
NDP
Alistair MacGregor NDP Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think all of the parties included supplementary reports. I don't know if anyone dissented. Everyone was generally in agreement with all of the recommendations. Each party just added little bit more colour commentary to it at the end. I appreciate, Mr. Lloyd, your wishes to re-examine the report, but really my intention with this motion is to ensure that we get a timely government response and to honour the huge amount of work that was done by the committee in the previous Parliament.
That's my main motion, and I don't want to take away any more time from that main goal.
12:30 p.m.
Conservative
Dane Lloyd Conservative Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I don't mean to create a misunderstanding. There's no interest from me in reopening the study. I just noticed that your original amendment said that dissenting or supplementary opinions should be in Calibri 12-point font, so I believed from your original amendment that there would be an opportunity to maybe review supplementary opinions before pushing for this report to be picked up again. However, it seems like your removing that has basically said that it's not necessary to review them because they're already in and there's no opportunity.... Is there an opportunity to possibly change a supplementary opinion, or is there no opportunity now that it's in? You don't want any opportunity to look at a supplementary opinion.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
12:30 p.m.
NDP
Alistair MacGregor NDP Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC
I would be in favour, Mr. Chair, of the motion as I read it out, with the part referencing supplementary or dissenting opinions to be removed completely, so I wouldn't support Mr. Lloyd's putting it back in. I'd like to support the motion as I read it into the record the original time.
12:30 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Jim Carr
Okay. Is there other commentary before we put this to a vote?
Clerk, are you pointing to somebody with a hand up?
12:30 p.m.
The Clerk
Yes, but—
12:30 p.m.
Liberal
Ron McKinnon Liberal Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, BC
I want to note that when the report was originally filed, there was an opportunity for all the parties to submit supplementary reports. The real point now is to get the government to respond to the report. The government wouldn't normally respond to the supplementary reports in any event. The point is to get a government response, and that's the reason for going ahead.
12:30 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Jim Carr
Thank you.
Are there other comments before I seek unanimous consent?
Do we have unanimous consent?
I do not believe we do. Would we go to a recorded division, clerk?
12:35 p.m.
Conservative
Dane Lloyd Conservative Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB
I think you do have unanimous support, Mr. Chair.
12:35 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Jim Carr
Oh, that's even better. I'm getting various circular motions from the clerk's right hand, so I'm not clear.
(Motion agreed to)
It's unanimous consent again. Holy smokes. We can change the world in this committee.
Ms. Damoff, did you want the floor?
12:35 p.m.
Liberal