Evidence of meeting #76 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 chair.
A video is available from Parliament.
5:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
I call this meeting to order.
Welcome to meeting number 76 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security.
I will recognize Mr. Julian shortly, once I get through this preamble.
5:25 p.m.
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
Can I be on the list after him, please, Chair?
Thank you.
5:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
You'll be next.
Pursuant to the order of reference of Friday, November 25, 2022, the committee continues its consideration of Bill C-20, an act establishing the public complaints and review commission and amending certain acts and statutory instruments.
Today the committee resumes clause-by-clause consideration.
Today’s meeting is taking place in a hybrid format, pursuant to the Standing Orders. Members are attending in person in the room and remotely using the Zoom application.
I remind you that all comments should be addressed through the chair.
When we adjourned last, we did not continue the debate, so strictly speaking, the matters that were under debate at that time are terminated.
Mr. Julian, please go ahead.
5:25 p.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'd like to propose a motion, which I will speak to, of course. It's already gone out to the committee members. It reads as follows:
That the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security hold a 3‑hour meeting, immediately after the committee’s study of Bill C‑20, on the rights of victims of crime and the security reclassification and transfer of offenders within federal corrections. That the committee invite: 1. The current Minister of Public Safety 2. The Commissioner of Correctional Service Canada, Anne Kelly, Deputy Minister of Public Safety, Shawn Tupper, and the Correctional Investigator, and the Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime, Tim Danson, to appear, 3. Representative(s) of the Union of Canadian Correctional Officers (UCCO) to appear, 4. Representative(s) of the Union of Safety and Justice Employees (USJE) to appear. Furthermore, that the committee invite immediately the Minister of Public Safety and ministry departmental officials to come to committee for two hours to discuss the Public Safety Minister’s mandate. Finally, that the committee hold a 1‑hour in camera meeting to be briefed on trauma informed questioning of at committee for future testimony from victims.
There's just a bit of a typo. “The Minister of Public Safety” should appear just in that second section.
The reason I'm proposing this is that, having listened very attentively to Liberal colleagues, Conservative colleagues and also Madame Michaud from the Bloc Québécois, we seem to have a consensus around having meetings. There was an insistence, I understand, from the Conservatives, who talked about six hours. You'll see that this motion refers to six hours of meetings and that we have the Minister of Public Safety before us. That invitation is on this subject, but also on all other subjects in the mandate. Also, it adds in Ms. Rempel Garner's comments about trauma-informed questioning.
Hopefully, with a bit of tweaking, we can get this motion adopted and go on to Bill C-20. We have our witnesses here today, and I think they will be giving us a lot of good wisdom as we move forward on Bill C-20.
Then, following Bill C-20, we would have that three-hour meeting with the witnesses. We'll have the minister, who's invited on the mandate, which also includes this issue, and we'll have an in camera meeting on trauma-informed questioning at committee.
I'm hoping this is a consensus that we can treat relatively quickly and move on to Bill C-20 tonight.
5:30 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
Thank you, Mr. Julian.
I note that we have been seized with this issue for the last three meetings, so I will regard this as continuation of that business. Therefore, there's no requirement for 48 hours' notice.
5:30 p.m.
Conservative
5:30 p.m.
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
Thank you, Chair.
I'm open to a discussion about some aspects of this, but Mr. Julian did not provide the required 48 hours' notice. The matter at hand, according to the agenda, is Bill C-20, which means that a motion has to be either on Bill C-20 or on a matter being discussed. The fact that we discussed this issue at a previous meeting does not make it the matter at hand. The fact that it was discussed two days ago does not make it the matter at hand at the beginning of this meeting.
Mr. Julian got the floor and moved this motion, which he would be entitled to do if it had been on notice for 48 hours. Respectfully, it is not plausible to say that something having been discussed at a previous meeting 48 hours ago makes it the matter at hand.
I would respectfully suggest that Mr. Julian can present some of these proposals in the context of an amendment to a motion under discussion. It is very clearly not the matter at hand.
5:30 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
Thank you, Mr. Genuis.
This matter is not something we just happened to discuss in a previous meeting. This has been the focus of the last three meetings. As chair, I have ruled it in order. If you wish to challenge the chair, please do so.
5:30 p.m.
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
Chair, before I make a decision about challenging the chair, would you allow the clerk to provide clarification on what is meant by “matter at hand” in the rules? If you would allow it, I would welcome the clerk's providing clarification to the committee.
5:30 p.m.
The Clerk of the Committee Mr. Simon Larouche
What I can do is read the routine motion regarding the notice of motions, which reads:
That a 48-hour notice, interpreted as two nights, be required for any substantive motion to be moved in committee, unless the substantive motion relates directly to business then under consideration....
That's the routine motion.
5:30 p.m.
Liberal
5:30 p.m.
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
Chair, just as a point of order, what the clerk read said “matter currently under consideration”. You're interpreting “currently under consideration” as meaning a matter that has been discussed frequently at previous meetings. That is quite obviously not the same as a matter currently under consideration. That is the rule.
If members of the committee choose to.... If the chair, who is obviously elected as a member of the governing party, and a majority of the committee choose to show flagrant disregard for the rules, then I would suggest it puts this committee on a further troubling path and is not the way to move forward constructively.
Regardless of the creativity being shown, I think the rules are pretty clear that “matter at hand” means “matter at hand”, not something that has been discussed at previous meetings.
5:30 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
I think we've gone beyond a point of order.
The chair has ruled on this matter.
5:30 p.m.
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
I will, of course, challenge the chair.
5:30 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
Very well.
The question is, shall the decision of the chair be sustained? If you vote yes, you vote to sustain the decision of the chair that this motion is in order. If you vote no, you vote that the decision of the chair is not in order.
(Ruling of the chair sustained: yeas 7; nays 4)
The decision of the chair is sustained. This motion is in order and it is moved.
Mr. Julian, do you wish to carry on with presenting your debate?
5:35 p.m.
Conservative
Leslyn Lewis Conservative Haldimand—Norfolk, ON
On a point of clarification, Chair, you're waiving the two days' notice for the presentation of this motion.
5:35 p.m.
Conservative
5:35 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
As I said, I believe this is a matter that we were engaged with, seized with for all of the last three meetings, essentially, so in my mind it is a continuation.
5:35 p.m.
Conservative
5:35 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
The matter has been decided, and we need to carry on.
Go ahead, Mr. Julian.
5:35 p.m.
Conservative
Leslyn Lewis Conservative Haldimand—Norfolk, ON
I'm just seeking clarification, Chair, because I wasn't here before. If you were seized with the motion, why did we have to move a new motion? If the matter was already before this committee, why is there notice of motion present today? Why is it not an amendment?