Evidence of meeting #9 for Public Safety and National Security in the 45th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was meetings.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Conservative
Frank Caputo Conservative Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola, BC
Thank you, Chair, and thank you, MP Ramsay, as well.
There are a lot of moving parts here, so I'll attempt to summarize it all, because I think we have a general consensus. I just don't want to miss anything here.
With respect to the Bill C-12 motion that was just read, I'm not sure if he said a minimum of four meetings. That was my impression.
Was it a minimum of four meetings?
Conservative
Frank Caputo Conservative Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola, BC
Okay. My understanding was that it was to be a minimum of four meetings.
One thing that should be noted—and we can have an agreement or an understanding of an agreement—is that we wouldn't move to clause-by-clause immediately. For instance, if the witnesses finish their testimony at one o'clock, we wouldn't be moving into clause-by-clause at 1:05. We would be taking two hours per meeting for clause-by-clause.
I think those were the two main issues.
Mr. Ramsay is saying four meetings. My understanding was that the agreement was for a minimum of four meetings, so I will just try to get some clarity on that.
I believe he's going to speak about Bill C-8, so while I have the floor—
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Jean-Yves Duclos
MP Caputo, would you mind reserving your comments until the motion regarding Bill C-8 is moved?
Mrs. DeBellefeuille, you have the floor.
Bloc
Claude DeBellefeuille Bloc Beauharnois—Salaberry—Soulanges—Huntingdon, QC
Mr. Chair, I'd like to move an amendment to this motion, if I could. I will read the text as amended by the three changes I am proposing:
That, in relation to the study of Bill C‑12:
The committee invite members to submit witness lists to the clerk of the committee no later than November 3, 2025 at 4:00 p.m.;
That the committee schedule a minimum of four meetings to hear from witnesses; invite the Minister of Public Safety to appear and invite relevant officials;
And that the committee conduct clause-by-clause consideration of the bill at a sitting specified by the committee, following the final meeting with witnesses, and that the committee dedicate the number of meetings required for clause-by-clause consideration to be completed.
We felt that the October 29 date was rushed to provide the list of witnesses, so by saying “no later than November 3”, that gives the clerk some leeway to contact witnesses and prepare for the business meeting.
I agree with my Conservative colleague that a minimum of four meetings would be much wiser. However, I don't agree at all with the idea of burying the clause-by-clause study of the bill after hearing from witnesses, at the fourth meeting, until it's over. I think it makes more sense to start clause-by-clause on the bill after we finish hearing from witnesses at a later meeting.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Jean-Yves Duclos
Okay.
Three things have been said: first, a minimum of four meetings; second, witness lists by November 3; and third, an implicit understanding that we would suspend, not adjourn, after the fourth meeting, which means that the next meeting would be a continuation of the meeting that was not adjourned. That's the understanding, those three things.
Is there a unanimous view on this?
Go ahead, Madame DeBellefeuille.
Bloc
Claude DeBellefeuille Bloc Beauharnois—Salaberry—Soulanges—Huntingdon, QC
You've summarized the spirit of my amendment. That's my understanding, Mr. Chair.
Bloc
Claude DeBellefeuille Bloc Beauharnois—Salaberry—Soulanges—Huntingdon, QC
Okay.
I want us to understand each other. We don't want to find ourselves in a situation where, at the fourth meeting—assuming there will be four—if there are still a few minutes left after hearing from the witnesses, we continue with clause-by-clause consideration of the bill late into the evening. Is that what you understand from my amendment?
I want to remind you that the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration, or CIMM, will be studying the part of the bill that deals with amendments to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, and it will be hearing testimony. Since it will be up to our committee to do the clause-by-clause consideration of the bill, I think it's important for the analysts to be able to give us a summary of what was heard at the CIMM committee, since we'll have to read its recommendations. As a result, it seems to me that we should have a minimum of four meetings.
Liberal
The Clerk of the Committee Andrew Wilson
I spoke to the clerk of the CIMM committee, who told me that his committee would submit its recommendations to the chair of our committee once his committee had finished hearing the testimony. Those recommendations will then be distributed to the members of our committee as soon as we receive them.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Jean-Yves Duclos
Very good.
Is there consensus, possibly even unanimity, on these three changes to the motion being produced? First, there's the minimum of four meetings. Second, there is the November 3 date by which to submit a list of witnesses. Third, there is an understanding that the fourth meeting will be followed by other meetings to have the clause-by-clause discussion, and the fourth meeting will not be extended, possibly, to very late in the day.
It seems to me we're coming to a consensus.
Ms. Dandurand, the floor is yours.
Liberal
Marianne Dandurand Liberal Compton—Stanstead, QC
I'm fine with the last two proposed changes, but I think we should stick to four meetings, without mentioning “a minimum of”. We won't give our consent to this proposal of “a minimum of” four meetings.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Jean-Yves Duclos
Okay. I believe there have been preliminary discussions on this among the leaders' offices and that a preliminary agreement has been reached. We can't reopen these discussions once such an agreement has been reached. We need to avoid going around in circles.
I would like to remind everyone that these discussions are best taking place outside of such a meeting. My understanding is that there was an agreement to such a motion before it was tabled by MP Ramsay, so perhaps we shouldn't invest our time again in relitigating all of that.
MP Lloyd.
Conservative
Dane Lloyd Conservative Parkland, AB
Thank you.
I think there might have been some wires crossed here. I do like November 3 and the implicit understanding. To assuage your concerns, I'm fine with the four meetings and not saying “a minimum of four”. If there is a really compelling reason to have a fifth meeting, we can discuss that at a different time, but I think four is fine for the motion right now.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Jean-Yves Duclos
Thank you, MP Lloyd.
Now, what about the date? Is November 3 a reasonable date? Okay.
Madame DeBellefeuille.
Bloc
Claude DeBellefeuille Bloc Beauharnois—Salaberry—Soulanges—Huntingdon, QC
Mr. Chair, when you summarized the three changes I proposed in my amendment—I think we're discussing this amendment in a friendly manner—you did so in English. I just want to make sure I understood correctly.
As for replacing the words “October 29”, the words “November 3”, that's fine. If everyone agrees to hold four meetings instead of a minimum of four, that's fine with me, too.
However, I'd like to understand one thing regarding my last change. We may need one or two meetings for clause-by-clause. You understand that, after the testimonies, we would begin clause-by-clause consideration and that we can't say how many meetings it will take.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Jean-Yves Duclos
I understand, but we're going to have to be disciplined, because we have a lot of other work to do afterwards. Many of you are waiting to conduct or complete other studies, so we're aware of the fact that the time available to all members is limited.
We have to be reasonable in our expectations, because time is the scarcest resource around.
MP Caputo.
Conservative
Frank Caputo Conservative Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola, BC
Thank you.
I apologize. I was communicating throughout Madame DeBellefeuille's intervention.
My understanding is that there was an agreement for four meetings. I'm only talking about the Conservatives and the Liberals. This happened above my level.
If there is a concern, I would hope that we, as a committee, would be nimble and honour Madame DeBellefeuille's concerns. If we need another meeting, I would hope that this is something we would address, if need be, to allay any of her concerns. I believe that right now we're debating between four and a minimum of four. If it is four, then it's with an understanding that if there have to be more meetings, we would readdress that. Is that okay?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Jean-Yves Duclos
I think there is indeed some consensus. Is everyone fine with that?
Madame Dandurand.
Liberal
Marianne Dandurand Liberal Compton—Stanstead, QC
I'd like to make sure of one thing, Mr. Chair.
I think I misunderstood the last change proposed by my colleague's amendment. As I understand it, there would be only one meeting for clause-by-clause consideration and we would continue it until it is completed. Only one meeting would be held, without adjournment.
Bloc
Claude DeBellefeuille Bloc Beauharnois—Salaberry—Soulanges—Huntingdon, QC
It would be a subamendment.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Jean-Yves Duclos
Okay.
In that case, one meeting would be added after the fourth meeting on Bill C‑8, but during that meeting, we would have to complete the clause-by-clause consideration of the bill. Did I understand correctly?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Jean-Yves Duclos
I stand corrected. We are indeed talking about Bill C‑12. Otherwise, have I understood correctly?
