Public Safety Committee on May 19th, 2022

[The Chair, Liberal, Jim Carr]

Ms. Damoff.

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Oakville North—Burlington, ON]

Mr. Chair, obviously we always try to give 48 hours, but there are certainly times when issues come forward based on what we've heard through testimony. It is the case in any committee, not just ours, that a motion would be brought forward with 48 hours' notice, unless it relates to something we heard.

I recognize that the questions weren't focused on Ukraine and Russia, but the minister certainly did bring it forward in his remarks. I would argue that because he did that, it means that we can move forward with this motion without 48 hours' consent.

I would just ask that, if the Conservatives are not supporting this motion, perhaps we should just go to a vote.

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB]

I have a point of order.

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Oakville North—Burlington, ON]

I would hope they would be supportive. I wish I had been there in person today, to be honest with you, so that I could have chatted with Madam Dancho during the break, but I wasn't able to do that. I tried to give her a heads-up electronically, which is never as effective as an in-person conversation. I'm not going to question that.

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB]

I have a point of order.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jim Carr]

Go ahead on your point of order, Mr. Lloyd.

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I think I can speak for all the Conservative members and say that we are in support of the motion, but this is a very interesting procedural tactic. I want your perspective on this, Mr. Chair, because if we set the precedent that literally anything a witness brings up could trigger motions around our standing orders, we're setting a really bad precedent.

The reason we have the 48-hour notice is to give members the time to think about what's being put forward and have time to prepare remarks on it. If we set the precedent that, any item a witness brings up can be used as a justification for putting forward a motion without 48 hours' notice, we're setting a very bad precedent.

If the member is trying to say that she doesn't need unanimous consent to put this forward, I would ask, out of respect for the committee, that we have unanimous consent, rather than accepting the precedent that we can bring up a motion without 48 hours' notice based on what a witness says.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jim Carr]

Thank you.

Clerk, what is your advice on where we proceed from here?

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Oakville North—Burlington, ON]

I have my hand up, Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jim Carr]

Before that, I would like an opinion from the clerk.

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Oakville North—Burlington, ON]

Okay.

[The Clerk]

I would like to inform you that Mr. MacGregor and Madame Michaud would like to speak to this.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jim Carr]

We have a speakers list here. I see Ms. Damoff's hand up, and then I'll ask the other two members.

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Oakville North—Burlington, ON]

Thanks, Mr. Chair.

It's certainly within the routine motions, but if the CPC would prefer that we do this by unanimous consent, then let's do that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jim Carr]

Ms. Michaud, your hand is up as well. Go ahead.

[Kristina Michaud, Bloc, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I understand the view of the Conservative members. In the past, I think we've had motions that were put forward without 48 hours' notice, and we all agreed that we should try to come to an understanding quickly, particularly out of respect for the witnesses.

I thought I heard Mr. Lloyd say that he was in favour of the motion. As Ms. Damoff suggested, I think we can proceed with the vote. I have questions for the witnesses before us, and I'm sure my fellow members do as well, so we should go ahead and vote.

I do, however, have a question for Ms. Damoff. I would like to know whether, to her knowledge, the Liberal Party plans to propose a similar motion in other committees. I'm curious as to why it's being put forward in this committee, because it may have been more appropriate for the Standing Committee on National Defence. Other than that, I would be ready to vote.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jim Carr]

There are no more hands raised on the floor. Then I think it's left to me to ask if we have unanimous consent to approve this motion. If we don't, may I hear a nay?

[The Clerk]

Mr. Chair, if I may, with respect to how we proceed, there is no need for unanimous consent to table the motion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jim Carr]

Does that mean we follow it immediately with a vote, Clerk?

[The Clerk]

If there's unanimous consent to accept the motion, the motion will be moved, which is then followed by debate. If there's no debate, we move to the vote on the motion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jim Carr]

Okay. The motion has been moved, so we should move to a vote.

[Raquel Dancho, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

On a point of order, Mr. Chair, just to be clear, my understanding of what the clerk is saying is that the member needs unanimous consent to move this motion. If she gets it, we can debate it and then we can vote on it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jim Carr]

Okay.

[Raquel Dancho, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

You're asking for unanimous consent now just to move it. Is that correct?

[The Chair, Liberal, Jim Carr]

Yes. I'm asking for unanimous consent to move the motion.

Do we have it?