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.
4:45 p.m.
NDP
Alistair MacGregor NDP Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC
I think there might be some confusion over how I amended the amendment.
Everything that Ms. Dancho moved stands, except for the number 20. I only replaced the number 20 in her amendment with “at least eight” meetings. There were questions about the minister, but nothing else in Ms. Dancho's amendment changes. That's still part of it. The only thing I changed was the number 20 to “at least eight”.
I just wanted that clarified on the record.
4:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
Thank you, Mr. MacGregor, for the clarification.
That being the case, and seeing no one wishing to speak, we will have a vote on Mr. MacGregor's subamendment.
4:50 p.m.
Bloc
Kristina Michaud Bloc Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC
I raise a point of order, Mr. Chair.
Conversations or discussions are happening on the sidelines, so to speak. Could we suspend the meeting for a brief moment?
5 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
This meeting has now resumed.
We were at the point where we were going to take a vote on Mr. MacGregor's subamendment, which is to modify Ms. Dancho's motion to change the words “twenty consecutive meetings” to “at least eight consecutive meetings”.
Is this on a point of order?
5 p.m.
Conservative
Raquel Dancho Conservative Kildonan—St. Paul, MB
I think we should put the conversation on the record, because folks who are watching weren't able to be aware—
5 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
Okay. So we're going to carry on with the discussion on Mr. MacGregor's motion.
5 p.m.
Conservative
Raquel Dancho Conservative Kildonan—St. Paul, MB
I'll be brief. I'm not looking to drag this out.
As you know, Mr. Chair, committees are about collaboration. Right now, we're really looking at either two meetings or eight or more, and with travel. That's what we've put forward. Again, the proposal was two, and then we put forward 20, plus the minister, and within that 20 we would do rural and northern travel, including first nations. The subamendment is saying “at least eight”, so it cuts it down from 20 to at least eight.
With consultations from the Bloc, and she can correct me if I'm not saying this correctly, we would.... I know we can't amend a subamendment, but I think we can agree as a committee that this is what we're implying by the subamendment. We would say that it would be eight meetings, not “at least eight”. This is what we need to get a consensus on here. That's why this is important. So, eight—
5 p.m.
Conservative
5 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
I'm just going to suggest that if we vote on Mr. MacGregor's amendment—
5 p.m.
Conservative
Raquel Dancho Conservative Kildonan—St. Paul, MB
Right, but as you said, we're running up the clock, so—
5 p.m.
Conservative
Raquel Dancho Conservative Kildonan—St. Paul, MB
What we've done in the past is that we've just agreed.... It is on the record, so we can reference it if anyone ever wants to cause problems, but just for the sake of efficiency, what I've talked to the Bloc about is whether she would agree not to “at least eight”, but to “eight” specifically.
We're not quite aligning on the travel. Rather than what our original vision was, which was to do notable trips, many trips around B.C. and Atlantic Canada, etc., and up north, it's that we commit as a committee to doing one stint up north, since that's really the most disadvantaged for travel and resources and is just very far away.
That's what we've talked about, so I'm just putting that out there—
5:05 p.m.
Liberal
5:05 p.m.
Conservative
Raquel Dancho Conservative Kildonan—St. Paul, MB
I am on a point of order, so can you point-of-order a point of order?
5:05 p.m.
Liberal
Taleeb Noormohamed Liberal Vancouver Granville, BC
On a point of clarification, what does a “stint” mean?
5:05 p.m.
Conservative
Raquel Dancho Conservative Kildonan—St. Paul, MB
I assume it would be one week when we go up north. We'd go to Nunavut, Yellowknife, maybe Churchill, just going across the north. Again, they're at the most disadvantage to travel to Ottawa.
I think Mr. Lloyd's point was very clear. We want to make sure we're not just doing a strictly colonial approach to this and expecting everybody to come to Ottawa. I think we should go into people's communities and give them the respect they deserve.
I think we've compromised a little bit. Rather than doing a lot of travel, we would do one trip up north and then the rest, for other regions, we'd be expected to do regional.
I think I've made that clear. Of course, she is welcome to correct me, but I believe we can have a consensus on that.
5:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
I'll just clarify with Mr. MacGregor whether he agrees.
Mr. MacGregor, your motion was to change Ms. Dancho's motion to read “at least eight” meetings. Do you agree to change that to “eight” precisely?
5:05 p.m.
NDP
Alistair MacGregor NDP Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC
I agree with what Ms. Dancho is proposing. I think there was a lot of work during the suspension we had to try to hammer out something where we can come together, so I agree with what's being proposed.
5:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
What I'm proposing now is a vote on the amendment. Your amendment is to change the word “twenty” to “eight”, and that's it.
Is there any further discussion on that?
Mr. Noormohamed, go ahead.
5:05 p.m.
Liberal
Taleeb Noormohamed Liberal Vancouver Granville, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I think we all agree that there is still work to be done on this. I think there are a lot of conversations yet to be had. There are a lot of people to hear from.
What I am struggling with is how we say, on the one hand, that we want 50 meetings or we need 20 meetings to be able to hear everybody properly, but now we can condense that into eight. Somehow, that's the magic number that's going to satisfy everybody.
As Mr. Motz noted, we supported Madame Michaud's original proposal of two meetings because, perhaps—I think we've heard this before—there should have been a different process for consultation undertaken previously, but the work of the committee is to consider the bill. We have agreed to suspend to discuss—all of us—the amendment we have before us.
I'm trying to figure out how we limit very specifically the conversations that we have in respect of the specific amendment before us. If we take this approach that we want eight meetings on this particular amendment, what's to say that at the next amendment they say that they're not comfortable? Some parties may come out and say that they actually don't like the whole bill. Instead of coming out and saying that they don't like the whole bill and they want to vote it down, they're going to—I will get to my point, Mr. Chair—get to a place where it becomes 106(4) on amendment upon amendment.
I appreciate what Mr. MacGregor has said. I appreciate sincerely that there is a need for further consultation. I'm not clear on whether we achieve that objective by taking one trip to one part of this country. Then we'll hear accusations from folks saying we ignored this part or that part and we still rushed through it.