Evidence of meeting #54 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.
Conservative
Raquel Dancho Conservative Kildonan—St. Paul, MB
I believe he said “at least eight meetings”. It wasn't “eight” definitively, but “at least eight meetings”. I believe that's what the member said.
Liberal
Liberal
Vance Badawey Liberal Niagara Centre, ON
Are we not to vote on the amendment first, and then, if that doesn't proceed—
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
We're allowed to go one deeper. We're allowed to go to a subamendment.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
We'll vote on the subamendment, except that we have more people who want to discuss it.
We are now engaging in discussion on Mr. MacGregor's subamendment to Ms. Dancho's amendment to Ms. Michaud's motion.
Next, we have Mr. Motz, followed by Mr. Shipley and Ms. Michaud.
Conservative
Glen Motz Conservative Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I won't necessarily speak directly to Mr. MacAllister's subamendment. However, I will say that I agree we need a minimum number of meetings. Two certainly weren't sufficient.
I have some confusion about the travel. I agree we need to travel and meet some of the people. Asking all of them to come to Ottawa would be unreasonable for their resources, as well. Are we talking about eight meetings in which we travel? We also need meetings here. There are going to be groups and organizations that will want to come to Ottawa and meet here.
I think we need some clarity around that. I guess “a minimum of” would suffice. When I'm done with my intervention, I would certainly like to have some clarity from Mr. MacAllister on that. I would—
Conservative
Glen Motz Conservative Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB
Did I say “MacAllister” again? I'm so sorry. I can't believe it.
It's Mr. MacGregor.
Conservative
Glen Motz Conservative Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB
Could you turn your name tag, so I can actually see it? I apologize.
I want to thank Mr. MacGregor for his amazing intervention. He took a lot of the things I was going to say. I will repeat some of them, because I think they're worth repeating.
First, the Liberals need to wear this mess. That's the bottom line.
How in the world did we get to the point where we've spent six meetings on a government amendment to a bill they were so proud of? There are 140-plus amendments to this bill, and they're not all opposition amendments. Many of them are the government's. G-46 is a good indication. Of that 140, they have 46 amendments to their own bill, which was supposed to be so perfect. That should speak to the—
Bloc
Bloc
Kristina Michaud Bloc Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC
My understanding was that Mr. Motz requested clarification from Mr. McGregor on his subamendment. Perhaps he could answer before Mr. Motz continues to make his point? That could clarify things.
Conservative
Liberal
NDP
Conservative
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
I believe the question was whether the proposed travel was part of the eight meetings or not.
Conservative
NDP
Alistair MacGregor NDP Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC
To clarify, I did not change the travel portion. It was only the number of meetings.
The amendment that Ms. Dancho moved, that is still part of it. My subamendment only amended the number of meetings.
Conservative
Glen Motz Conservative Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB
Thank you for the clarification.
Before I was point-of-ordered, I was going to ask the question, why are we in this mess? Why did we have six meetings to study—