Evidence of meeting #30 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 subamendment.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Liberal
Liberal
Liberal
Ron McKinnon Liberal Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, BC
My point earlier was that we did not specify one-hour panels. Within the context of the broader meeting, we can set those panels to be whatever length makes sense in that context.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Jim Carr
Are we ready for the question?
(Subamendment agreed to: yeas 7; nays 4 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
We'll return to debate on Ms. Damoff's amendment, I believe, as amended.
Do we have a speakers list to address Ms. Damoff's amendment?
The Clerk
I'm sorry, Mr. Chair. First, it was Mr. MacGregor and then Ms. Dancho.
NDP
Alistair MacGregor NDP Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC
I'll make this quick.
I want to put on the record that I support 90% of what Ms. Damoff is proposing here. My disagreement with the amendment is on the timing.
I feel strongly that this meeting should happen next week. I can't pick out parts of the amendment, so overall that's why I will have to vote against it.
Conservative
Raquel Dancho Conservative Kildonan—St. Paul, MB
Mr. Chairman, I am going to move a subamendment, but I have a question for the clerk first.
The scheduled maintenance is to begin the week following next. My understanding is that if Parliament requires an urgent meeting—and I believe we've established that this is urgent—we can meet during scheduled maintenance.
Mr. Clerk, could you confirm that, please?
Conservative
Raquel Dancho Conservative Kildonan—St. Paul, MB
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I have one more question before I move my subamendment. The point has been made that next week there is a memorial on Wednesday, and we could perhaps have this meeting on Thursday. To Mr. MacGregor's point and the points that have been made, this is an urgent matter. I recognize that Liberal members and perhaps our Bloc colleague would prefer not to have it the same week as the memorial. If that's the case, I think perhaps a compromise, a “purple tie” moment, may be that we host the meetings in the first week of the scheduled maintenance.
I would like to move a subamendment to the Liberal motion.
Mr. Chair, I don't have the amendment with the subamendment in front of me, so I'm not sure how we proceed in this type of situation. The objective of my amendment is as follows.
The panels have been divided into three groups. We have the RCMP officials, Commissioner Lucki, and the deputy minister and the minister. Is that correct? Can we clarify since we don't have it in front of us?
Oh, I have it now. We have a panel with the RCMP officials. We have a panel with Commissioner Lucki and Deputy Commissioner Brennan, and we have a panel with Minister Blair and the deputy minister.
I would move an amendment that we make the first meeting with the RCMP officials two hours, the panel with Commissioner Lucki and Deputy Commissioner Brennan one hour, and the panel with Minister Blair and the deputy minister one hour, and that we provide a 30-minute recess between each panel. That's one part of the amendment.
The second part of the amendment is that, in the hour that Minister Blair and his deputy minister are coming, a representative from the Prime Minister's Office come. Obviously we require someone from the Prime Minister's Office to speak because they have been mentioned in two different accounts in the legal witness testimony provided to the Mass Casualty Commission. This investigation at this committee would be incomplete without a representative of the Prime Minister's Office, so that's the second part of my amendment.
Then the third part is that we meet in the first week of the scheduled maintenance. I propose Monday. I'm not sure of the exact date, but it's a Monday.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Jim Carr
We have the subamendment on the table.
I now would invite members of the committee to comment.
Mr. Lloyd.
Conservative
Dane Lloyd Conservative Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
It's important to note that this subamendment, to clarify and summarize what my colleague was saying, adds an hour. That addresses my concern, because one hour for five officials from the RCMP to present on one panel, even if, as Mr. McKinnon said, we could extend it by a half an hour within the three-hour time frame, is not enough time for us to properly cross-examine these officials.
I agree with the two hours, but I would also note that this subamendment would basically, because we are setting a date during the maintenance period, invalidate the amendment that Ms. Damoff made that we await the commissioner's testimony at the Mass Casualty Commission unless that testimony takes place before that, but I don't believe it will. It's important to note that this subamendment would be eliminating that requirement.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Liberal
Pam Damoff Liberal Oakville North—Burlington, ON
Thanks, Chair.
In the spirit of collegiality with my colleague from the Conservatives, I think we could agree to a four-hour meeting, but I would reiterate that the commissioner is testifying at the inquiry in July at some point. I continue to stress that she should come following her testimony. Even if we moved it to that first week of July, it would be prior to her testimony. We don't have a date. I know Mr. Lloyd and I were having a sort of off-line conversation on that, but my understanding is that there is not a date for the commissioner to testify.
It's also my understanding that, when she testifies, there's no time limit on it. It could be a day. It could be two days. It could be three days. It could be a week. It depends on the commissioner and how many questions they want to ask her. If we're having these officials come, I strongly urge colleagues to do this after she has testified and we have all the facts on the table. That would likely be in August.
We could support changing it to a four-hour meeting but not the end part. I think we'd have to vote against Ms. Dancho's amendment and then perhaps, depending on how that turns out, we could amend again to make it a four-hour meeting, but we would have to vote against it the way it is worded now.
Conservative
Raquel Dancho Conservative Kildonan—St. Paul, MB
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I thank Ms. Damoff for her comments, but I would reiterate the point that's been made several times. The inquiry is investigating something separate to what we are investigating at the public safety committee. Our responsibility is to hold the government accountable for their actions in all regards and all departments in public safety. This is an urgent matter, a shocking revelation from the Mass Casualty Commission, that we will be further investigating, which is our duty as opposition members and as members of this public safety committee.
I would reiterate that the inquiry is investigating matters separate from what we are investigating. We have an obligation to move forward, and to move forward quickly, frankly, given the revelations that were made and how shocking they are. I believe the public deserves answers rather than waiting four, five or six weeks to hear.
I would respectfully disagree with my colleague on that.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Jim Carr
Are there any other comments from members of the committee on the subamendment?
Go ahead, Mr. McKinnon.
Liberal
Ron McKinnon Liberal Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, BC
On a point of order, I would like to caution or bring to attention regarding Ms. Dancho's words that these are not revelations so much as allegations. I think we should keep to that language.
Conservative
Raquel Dancho Conservative Kildonan—St. Paul, MB
On a point of order, Mr. Chair. This is legal witness testimony as part of the Mass Casualty Commission, just to be clear.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Jim Carr
Are there any other comments from members of the committee before we put the subamendment to a vote?
Mr. MacGregor, go ahead.
NDP
Alistair MacGregor NDP Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I guess I would seek clarification from our clerk with regard to the critical maintenance. It did say that, if there's an urgent request for a House committee to meet, so if we do decide to meet that week of July 4, it is possible.