Public Safety Committee on Dec. 13th, 2022

[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.

[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—

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Ms. Dancho's motion says “consecutive”.

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

That was Madame Michaud's motion.

[Vance Badawey, Liberal, Niagara Centre, ON]

Mr. Chair, I have a point of order.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Mr. Badawey, go ahead on a point of order.

[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—

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

I dream of this.

[Vance Badawey, Liberal, Niagara Centre, ON]

Let's go one at a time here.

[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?

[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...?

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

We're changing only that one word.

[Taleeb Noormohamed, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

Okay, thank you.

[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”?

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

Can we get a recorded division, Mr. Chair?

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Yes. Absolutely.

[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?

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

The only change—

[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.

[Vance Badawey, Liberal, Niagara Centre, ON]

Thank you.

[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.

[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”.

[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.

[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?

[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.