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.
5:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
I think you're speaking to the broader amendment.
The question on the table right now is whether we do the eight meetings, in Ms. Dancho's amendment, or 20 meetings, which is how it stands now. All this other stuff about travel and stuff is part of Ms. Dancho's amendment. Once we've finished Mr. MacGregor's subamendment, we can speak meaningfully to that. I'm going to ask if you would like to speak first on that amendment after we have the vote.
Mr. Lloyd, go ahead.
5:10 p.m.
Conservative
Dane Lloyd Conservative Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB
On a point of clarification, you said “consecutive” earlier. I didn't hear anyone say “consecutive”. My understanding of “consecutive” is continuous meetings back to back—
5:10 p.m.
Conservative
5:10 p.m.
Liberal
Vance Badawey Liberal Niagara Centre, ON
Can we deal with one amendment at a time here? We have a subamendment on the table. Can we deal with that and then—
5:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
Let us have the vote on Mr. MacGregor's subamendment, which is merely to change the word “twenty” to “eight”.
Are we in favour of that subamendment?
5:10 p.m.
Liberal
Taleeb Noormohamed Liberal Vancouver Granville, BC
Mr. Chair, I have a point of order.
I'm sorry. This may be a silly question, process-wise. We're basically switching the 20 to an eight. Is that correct? Does that not affect the entirety of the motion, or are we just amending...?
5:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
All right, I think we're clear. I'm hoping we're clear.
Are all in favour of Mr. MacGregor's subamendment, which changes “twenty” to “eight”?
5:10 p.m.
Conservative
5:10 p.m.
Liberal
Vance Badawey Liberal Niagara Centre, ON
Could I have clarification on that, please, Mr. Chair?
You said “eight meetings”. Does that include travel, as well?
5:10 p.m.
NDP
Alistair MacGregor NDP Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC
The only word I'm changing is “twenty” to “eight”.
We'll get to the amendment after this vote.
5:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
Okay, let's go ahead with the vote.
(Subamendment agreed to: yeas 6; nays 5 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The discussion now is on Ms. Dancho's amendment, as amended by Mr. MacGregor. I'm not going to read it, but it's eight consecutive meetings, as opposed to 20.
Is there any discussion on Ms. Dancho's amendment, as modified by Mr. MacGregor?
Mr. Lloyd, you have the floor.
5:10 p.m.
Conservative
Dane Lloyd Conservative Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I have some questions about the meaning of the term “consecutive”. My understanding is that the literal definition of the word means back-to-back meetings. I don't think that's what this committee really wants to have. If we had eight back-to-back meetings, that would be at least 16 hours of testimony. I just want to get clarification on that, perhaps from the clerk.
Speaking more substantively to the motion, I think it would be appropriate for this committee to consider a travel component to these eight meetings. As I said, there are a lot of communities that lack the capacity to come to Ottawa or participate in meetings, either physically or through rural broadband, which, as we know, is very poor. Even in my region, which is next to a major metropolitan area, people can't get access to high-speed Internet. I think it would be critical—on the side of reconciliation with indigenous peoples, specifically—for this committee to entertain at least one trip to northern Canada.
I'm always willing to work with other committee members to find something acceptable, but I think having a number of open meetings so witnesses in northern Canada can participate in their own communities would be very important for this.
I'm in support of this motion and would like some clarification on “consecutive”.
5:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
I would interpret “consecutive” to mean “one after the other without any breaks”, although, oftentimes, we need to intersperse it with breaks, because of estimates or whatever. That's how I interpret it.
We'll now go to Mr. Noormohamed.
5:15 p.m.
Bloc
Kristina Michaud Bloc Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC
I raise a point of order, Mr. Chair.
I can clarify the intent behind the word "consecutive,” because I’m the one who moved the motion.
I didn’t want to hold two meetings, one after the other, on the same day. I just wanted to make sure that both meetings included in the committee’s normal schedule would happen during the same week. So, we would hear from witnesses on Tuesday, then more witnesses on Thursday in the same week, not three weeks later. I just wanted to include those meetings in the committee’s regular schedule.
Does that clarify my proposal?
5:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
Yes, my interpretation of “consecutive” would be just that.
If someone wishes to get rid of the word “consecutive”, that could be a subamendment.
I can't believe I'm soliciting subamendments, at this point.
We'll now go to Mr. Noormohamed.