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.
Conservative
Leslyn Lewis Conservative Haldimand—Norfolk, ON
No, I'm just asking for the purposes of procedure. That's what—
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
I will answer you. We have been seized with this matter for three solid meetings. At the end of the last meeting, we adjourned but we did not continue the debate on those motions, so the floor is basically open to Mr. Julian's motion. In my estimation, it is a continuation of the business we were very thoroughly embroiled in.
We'll go now to—
Conservative
Leslyn Lewis Conservative Haldimand—Norfolk, ON
On a point of order, that wasn't my question, Chair. My question was, specifically, why do we have a new notice of motion? If we were seized with a motion that was—
Liberal
Conservative
Conservative
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
It's because the motions that were previously on the floor were not continued at the adjournment, so they're dead. If they were moved again, they could be considered again, but Mr. Julian's motion is ruled in order.
Conservative
Leslyn Lewis Conservative Haldimand—Norfolk, ON
On a point of order, Chair, you said they're dead. If they're dead, that means they have to be resurrected, and the rules clearly state that to resurrect or to bring forward a motion, you need a two days' notice.
I think the proper procedure, Chair, would be to do an amendment.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
This matter has been addressed. The chair has made a ruling. The committee has sustained the chair's ruling. It's not a matter under discussion any further.
Mr. Julian, go ahead.
Conservative
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
Thank you, Chair.
Maybe I can just be helpful. My colleague was looking for clarification about how this made sense. It doesn't make sense. The chair has clearly been directed by the PMO to implement a ruling. It has nothing to do with the rules—
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
—no precedent, no basis in this place, and I think it's clear that the way he's behaving is out of step with the rules.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
Mr. Genuis, you are out of order.
This was a decision by the chair, by the chair alone, for the good of this committee.
Mr. Julian, go ahead.
Conservative
Conservative
Leslyn Lewis Conservative Haldimand—Norfolk, ON
On a point of order, Mr. Chair, I'd like to make a statement—
Conservative
Leslyn Lewis Conservative Haldimand—Norfolk, ON
You're a creature of statute and this brings the entire procedure into disrepute.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Ms. Lewis wasn't here 48 hours ago, but Mr. Genuis was, and he'll recall that I gave the notice of motion 48 hours ago. Even if that was his point of order, he understands that I spoke to this issue, spoke to this amendment, spoke to this motion 48 hours ago. Therefore, Conservatives have no excuse, no pretext. They got their 48 hours' notice, even if they disagree with the chair's ruling.
Can we please have consideration of the motion, rather than these incredibly wasteful...? For taxpayers' purposes, tens of thousands of dollars have been invested now into this Conservative filibuster, when we have people from Public Safety, people from the RCMP, people who have very busy jobs, who are here to answer questions on Bill C-20. I would hope that the Conservatives would not destroy another committee meeting, at the cost of tens of thousands of dollars, and would allow this discussion and, hopefully, a consensus on this motion.
Forty-eight hours ago, I gave notice of this. It was also distributed, as a courtesy, to all members of the committee. Quite frankly, I'm flabbergasted by Conservatives' trying to pretend that the notice wasn't given 48 hours ago and trying to overturn a decision that was made by this committee a few minutes ago, so thank you, Mr. Chair. I will speak to this motion.
I will read the motion into the record a second time, just to make sure that everyone is aware and that the typo is corrected:
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 Commissioner of Correctional Service Canada, Anne Kelly; Deputy Minister of Public Safety, Shawn Tupper; the Correctional Investigator; the Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime, Benjamin Roebuck; and Tim Danson, lawyer for the victims to appear,
2. Representative(s) of the Union of Canadian Correctional Officers (UCCO) to appear,
3. 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 at committee for future testimony from victims.
After “That the committee invite”, we strike the first line. That was a duplicate, so I've renumbered these.
This is a consensus of all the comments that were made—
Conservative
Leslyn Lewis Conservative Haldimand—Norfolk, ON
I have a point of order. It's just for clarification.
I'm very, very sorry. I'm not trying to be obstreperous, but—
October 18th, 2023 / 5:40 p.m.
Liberal