﻿<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<Hansard xml:lang="EN" id="10946096">
  <StartPageNumber>1</StartPageNumber>
  <DocumentTitle>
    <DocumentName>EVIDENCE</DocumentName>
  </DocumentTitle>
  <ExtractedInformation>
    <ExtractedItem Name="InstitutionDebate">Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security</ExtractedItem>
    <ExtractedItem Name="Number">NUMBER 001</ExtractedItem>
    <ExtractedItem Name="Session">2nd SESSION</ExtractedItem>
    <ExtractedItem Name="Parliament">43rd PARLIAMENT</ExtractedItem>
    <ExtractedItem Name="Date">Thursday, October 8, 2020</ExtractedItem>
    <ExtractedItem Name="DateOtherLang">Le jeudi 8 octobre 2020</ExtractedItem>
    <ExtractedItem Name="Institution">Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security</ExtractedItem>
    <ExtractedItem Name="Country">CANADA</ExtractedItem>
    <ExtractedItem Name="RecordingNote">[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]</ExtractedItem>
    <ExtractedItem Name="HeaderTitle">EVIDENCE</ExtractedItem>
    <ExtractedItem Name="HeaderDate">October 8, 2020</ExtractedItem>
    <ExtractedItem Name="MetaDocumentCategory">Committee</ExtractedItem>
    <ExtractedItem Name="MetaTitle">NUMBER 001</ExtractedItem>
    <ExtractedItem Name="MetaTitleEn">NUMBER 001</ExtractedItem>
    <ExtractedItem Name="MetaTitleFr">NUMÉRO 001</ExtractedItem>
    <ExtractedItem Name="MetaNumberNumber">01</ExtractedItem>
    <ExtractedItem Name="MetaDateNumDay">08</ExtractedItem>
    <ExtractedItem Name="MetaDateNumMonth">10</ExtractedItem>
    <ExtractedItem Name="MetaDateNumYear">2020</ExtractedItem>
    <ExtractedItem Name="MetaCreationTime">2020/10/08 15:35:00</ExtractedItem>
    <ExtractedItem Name="MetaInstitution">House Of Commons</ExtractedItem>
    <ExtractedItem Name="InstitutionDebateFr">Comité permanent de la sécurité publique et nationale</ExtractedItem>
    <ExtractedItem Name="InstitutionDebateEn">Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security</ExtractedItem>
    <ExtractedItem Name="Acronyme">SECU</ExtractedItem>
    <ExtractedItem Name="SpeakerTitle">Chair</ExtractedItem>
    <ExtractedItem Name="SpeakerName">The Honourable John McKay</ExtractedItem>
    <ExtractedItem Name="SessionNumber">2</ExtractedItem>
    <ExtractedItem Name="ParliamentNumber">43</ExtractedItem>
    <ExtractedItem Name="InCameraNote" />
  </ExtractedInformation>
  <HansardBody>
    <OrderOfBusiness>
      <CatchLine />
      <SubjectOfBusiness>
        <SubjectOfBusinessContent>
          <Timestamp Hr="15" Mn="35">(1535)</Timestamp>
          <FloorLanguage language="EN">[<I>English</I>]</FloorLanguage>
          <Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" id="10946101">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="264130" Type="27">The Clerk of the Committee (Mr. Jean-Marie David)</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6284589"> Honourable members of the committee, I see a quorum. I must inform members that the clerk of the committee can only receive motions for the election of the chair. The clerk cannot receive other types of motions, cannot entertain points of order nor participate in debate.</ParaText>
              <FloorLanguage language="FR">[<I>Translation</I>]</FloorLanguage>
              <ParaText id="6284590">We can now proceed to the election of the chair.</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6284591">Pursuant to Standing Order 106(2), the chair must be a member of the government party.</ParaText>
              <FloorLanguage language="EN">[<I>English</I>]</FloorLanguage>
              <ParaText id="6284592">I am ready to receive motions for the chair. </ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="10946104">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="264317" Type="47">Ms. Pam Damoff (Oakville North—Burlington, Lib.)</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6284593"> I would like to nominate John McKay.</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="10946106">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="264130" Type="27">The Clerk</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6284594">Are there any further motions? </ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6284595">(Motion agreed to)</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" id="10946113">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="264130" Type="27">The Clerk</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6284596">I declare Mr. John McKay duly elected as chair of the committee.</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" id="10946114">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="269132" Type="35">The Chair (Hon. John McKay (Scarborough—Guildwood, Lib.))</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6284597"> Thank you, everyone. I appreciate it. It was the robocalls that probably put me over the top, as it was a hotly contested election. </ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" id="10946115">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="264485" Type="47">Mr. Jack Harris (St. John's East, NDP)</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6284598">There were no mail-in ballots.</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" id="10946117">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="269132" Type="35">The Chair</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6284599">I would have declared it a fraudulent election if I'd lost. </ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6284600">As people can tell, especially the new members being welcomed here, led by Shannon, I guess we must have really discouraged the entire Conservative Party last time. You did a clean sweep. </ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6284601">Tako, Damien and of course, the returning Glen, you're more than welcome. As Glen and others will know, we've had a pretty collegial committee, and we've done some pretty important work. I'm hoping that a lot of that work will carry over the course of whatever is left in this mandate. </ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6284602">With that, I'm going to move to the election of the vice-chairs. I would ask for a nomination for the first vice-chair. </ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="10946125">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="264446" Type="47">Mr. Tako Van Popta (Langley—Aldergrove, CPC)</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6284603"> I nominate Shannon Stubbs.</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="10946127">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="264130" Type="27">The Clerk</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6284604">Are there any further motions? </ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6284605">(Motion agreed to)</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" id="10946133">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="269132" Type="35">The Chair</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6284606"> Congratulations, Shannon. </ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" id="10946135">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="269133" Type="47">Mrs. Shannon Stubbs (Lakeland, CPC)</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6284607"> Thank you.</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" id="10946138">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="269132" Type="35">The Chair</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6284608">We can do the usual stuff in saying that I'm really looking forward to working with you, but I'm not sure that's true.</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="10946139">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="269133" Type="47">Mrs. Shannon Stubbs</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6284609">It goes without saying.</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" id="10946140">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="269132" Type="35">The Chair</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6284610">That's right.</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6284611">Let's move on to the second vice-chair.</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="10946141">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="264130" Type="27">The Clerk</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6284612">Pursuant to Standing Order 106(2), the second vice-chair must be a member of an opposition party other than the official opposition. </ParaText>
              <FloorLanguage language="FR">[<I>Translation</I>]</FloorLanguage>
              <ParaText id="6284613">I am now prepared to receive motions for the second vice-chair.</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6284614">Mr. Lightbound, please go ahead.</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Timestamp Hr="15" Mn="40">(1540)</Timestamp>
          <Intervention Type="" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="10946142">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="264320" Type="47">Mr. Joël Lightbound (Louis-Hébert, Lib.)</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6284615">Mr. Clerk, I nominate Kristina Michaud as second vice-chair of the committee.</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="10946143">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="264130" Type="27">The Clerk</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6284616">It has been moved by Mr. Lightbound that Ms. Michaud be elected as second vice-chair of the committee.</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6284617">Are there any further motions?</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6284618">(Motion agreed to)</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="10946150">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="264130" Type="27">The Clerk</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6284619">I declare the motion carried and Ms. Michaud duly elected second vice-chair of the committee.</ParaText>
              <FloorLanguage language="EN">[<I>English</I>]</FloorLanguage>
              <ParaText id="6284620">Mr. Chair, the floor is now yours.</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" id="10946153">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="269132" Type="35">The Chair</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6284621">Thank you, Mr. Clerk. It is indeed a pleasure to see the clerk back before us today. He's had some health challenges, and we are hoping the committee won't overwhelm him in his health challenges. It's really good to see you, Jean-Marie, and you've really been very helpful to us all.</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6284622"> I'd like to turn to routine motions. </ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6284623">Ms. Damoff.</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="10946155">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="264317" Type="47">Ms. Pam Damoff</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6284624">Thank you, Chair. I'll put on the record your comments about the clerk. They are shared by everyone who's been on this committee. </ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6284625">I would move that we adopt the routine motions from the last session of Parliament.</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="10946163">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="264485" Type="47">Mr. Jack Harris</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6284626">Chair, I guess I'll second it, but I would like to make some amendments to what is on the floor from the last Parliament. There are a couple of items that I believe need to be changed. I don't know how you want to do that. </ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6284627">How do you want to proceed?</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" id="10946169">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="269132" Type="35">The Chair</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6284628">First of all, we should get the original motion on the floor. </ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6284629">Pam has moved it. Are you going to second it?</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="Debate" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="10947545">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="264485" Type="47">Mr. Jack Harris</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6284630">I can second it as long as it's with amendments.</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="Debate" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="10947551">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="269132" Type="35">The Chair</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6284631">Then you'd have to move an amendment to the main motion. The main motion is properly on the floor, so with that, I'm assuming you have an amendment to the main motion.</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="10946170">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="264130" Type="27">The Clerk</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6284632">I'm sorry, Mr. Chair. It's just that we require unanimous consent if we're going to move all the motions in the same motion at the same time. I just want to make sure that the committee is in agreement.</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="10946174">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="264485" Type="47">Mr. Jack Harris</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6284633">Do we have to do it that way procedurally, Mr. Clerk?</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="10946176">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="264130" Type="27">The Clerk</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6284634">If we're doing all the motions at once, yes.</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="10946177">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="264485" Type="47">Mr. Jack Harris</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6284635">Why don't we take them...? There are changes, from my point of view, to the motions on the subcommittee on agenda and procedure and the time for opening remarks and questions of witnesses that I would like to move as amendments. I would invite Pam to have the motion that would adopt all of the previous routine motions adopted February 20, with the exception of item two and item four. I think we can have agreement on those. </ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6284636">I would move my amendments then for the other two, if that's procedurally okay with Pam and the chair.</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" id="10946183">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="269132" Type="35">The Chair</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6284637">I'm agreeable to that. Is there anything that's procedurally incorrect about that, Mr. Clerk? Okay.</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6284638">In effect, we're modifying Pam's motion to say we're moving for unanimous consent on everything except the time for opening remarks and questioning witnesses, and what was the other one?</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="10946186">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="264485" Type="47">Mr. Jack Harris</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6284639">It's the subcommittee on agenda and procedure. It's just the insertion of one word.</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" id="10946197">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="264445" Type="47">Mr. Damien Kurek (Battle River—Crowfoot, CPC)</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6284640">I have a point of order. It's just a question on the procedure. It's my understanding that, without unanimous consent, we adopt each individually through the routine motions. Is that correct?</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" id="10946200">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="269132" Type="35">The Chair</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6284641">Generally speaking, that's quite correct, but what we're trying to do is deal with everything else but the ones that are contentious. We're dealing with it that way, unless there's some real major objection to it. </ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="10946204">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="264445" Type="47">Mr. Damien Kurek</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6284642">I will note that I will be suggesting a number of amendments that would apply to the meeting without a quorum, the time for opening statements, opening remarks and questioning of witnesses, and then working meals as well.</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Timestamp Hr="15" Mn="45">(1545)</Timestamp>
          <Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" id="10946209">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="269132" Type="35">The Chair</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6284643">That's pretty much everything. With that, and seeing no unanimous consent to proceed in the other fashion, we'll have to go through it paragraph by paragraph. </ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6284644"> I will ask the committee to speak to the motion on analyst services: </ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6284645">
                <Quote>
                  <QuotePara Align="Left" IndentFirst="2" IndentRest="2">That the committee retain, as needed and at the discretion of the Chair, the services of one or more analysts....</QuotePara>
                </Quote>
              </ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6284646"> Does someone want to move that? </ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="10946214">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="264485" Type="47">Mr. Jack Harris</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6284647">I'll move that.</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6284648">(Motion agreed to [<I>See Minutes of Proceedings</I>])</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" id="10946219">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="269132" Type="35">The Chair</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6284649"> The motion on the subcommittee on agenda and procedure states:</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6284650">
                <Quote>
                  <QuotePara Align="Left" IndentFirst="2" IndentRest="2">That the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure be established and be composed of five members, namely the Chair and one member from each party; and that the subcommittee work in a spirit of collaboration.</QuotePara>
                </Quote>
              </ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6284651">Does someone want to move that?</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="10946220">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="264317" Type="47">Ms. Pam Damoff</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6284652">No.</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="10946221">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="264485" Type="47">Mr. Jack Harris</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6284653">No.</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" id="10946222">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="269132" Type="35">The Chair</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6284654">Okay, is it “no collaboration” or “no spirit”? Which one?</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="10946224">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="264485" Type="47">Mr. Jack Harris</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6284655">I have an amendment, sir.</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" id="10946226">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="269132" Type="35">The Chair</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6284656">Do you want to move the amendment, Jack?</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="10946228">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="264485" Type="47">Mr. Jack Harris</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6284657"> Yes. I just wanted to introduce the word “recognized” before “party”. Where it says, “one member from each party”, I would ask that the word “recognized” be inserted. That word is used in the PROC routine motions, but it's not in the original motion we have here. </ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6284658">The only reason for this is that, lest there be any confusion, I notice that in the chamber, even when voting now, the chair calls upon the members of the Green Party to have their votes counted. They're not a recognized party. I don't want there to be any reason for confusion in the subcommittee. They're not a member of the committee, or they don't have appointed members of the committee, but if we're going to do it in accordance with the normal procedure, then “recognized” ought to be inserted after the word “each”.</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6284659">I would move that the routine motion be amended to read as follows:</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6284660">
                <Quote>
                  <QuotePara Align="Left" IndentFirst="2" IndentRest="2"> That the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure be established and be composed of five members, namely the Chair and one member from each recognized party; and that the subcommittee work in a spirit of collaboration.</QuotePara>
                </Quote>
              </ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6284661">I am in favour of that part.</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" id="10946238">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="269132" Type="35">The Chair</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6284662">You're in favour of collaboration. Good.</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6284663">Does everyone understand the amendment to the motion?</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6284664">Is there any debate on the amendment?</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6284665">(Amendment agreed to)</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6284666">(Motion as amended agreed to)</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6284667">
                <B>The Chair:</B> Moving on, the third motion is with respect to meeting without a quorum:</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6284668">
                <Quote>
                  <QuotePara Align="Left" IndentFirst="2" IndentRest="2">That the Chair be authorized to hold meetings to receive evidence and to have that evidence printed when a quorum is not present, provided that at least four members are present, including two members of the opposition and two members of the government, but when travelling outside the parliamentary precinct, that the meeting begin after 15 minutes, regardless of members present.</QuotePara>
                </Quote>
              </ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6284669">Damien, I believe you had an amendment to that.</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="10946244">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="264445" Type="47">Mr. Damien Kurek</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6284670">I did, Mr. Chair, but it appears that the routine motions I have differ from the ones you just read. </ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6284671">I will not be needing to move a motion in this regard. It has clearly outlined what I was going to amend.</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" id="10946248">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="269132" Type="35">The Chair</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6284672">Well, there we are.</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6284673">Is there any other commentary or amendment on that motion?</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6284674">(Motion agreed to)</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="10946250">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="264485" Type="47">Mr. Jack Harris</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6284675">As a point of information, does that mean the chair could hold a meeting by himself or herself, with no members present? Is that the idea?</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Timestamp Hr="15" Mn="50">(1550)</Timestamp>
          <Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" id="10946252">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="269132" Type="35">The Chair</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6284676">I think we'd accomplish a lot, if that were true.</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6284677">
                <B>Voices:</B> Oh, oh!</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="10946254">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="264485" Type="47">Mr. Jack Harris</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6284678">All the more reason for members to make every effort to attend.</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" id="10946256">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="269132" Type="35">The Chair</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6284679">Yes. </ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6284680">I like the idea that when we get outside the parliamentary precinct, which is just basically down the street, I can start a meeting. That sounds good. </ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="10946258">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="264317" Type="47">Ms. Pam Damoff</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6284681">Just for clarification on that, though—</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="10946260">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="264485" Type="47">Mr. Jack Harris</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6284682">We're probably all out of it now.</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" id="10946261">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="269132" Type="35">The Chair</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6284683">Yes.</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="10946265">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="264317" Type="47">Ms. Pam Damoff</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6284684">In terms of travelling outside the parliamentary precinct, what we're doing right now is actually considered within the parliamentary precinct. Is that not correct? It's because it's a virtual Parliament.</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" id="10946268">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="269132" Type="35">The Chair</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6284685">I would think that's true, but I can't make a ruling with regard to what constitutes parliamentary precinct and what doesn't.</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="10946271">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="264485" Type="47">Mr. Jack Harris</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6284686">Privilege no doubt applies, though. </ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" id="10946275">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="269132" Type="35">The Chair</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6284687">The next motion deals with the time for opening remarks and questioning of witnesses:</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6284688">
                <Quote>
                  <QuotePara Align="Left" IndentFirst="2" IndentRest="2">That at the discretion of the chair, witnesses be given 10 minutes for their opening statement; that, at the discretion of the chair, during the questioning of witnesses there be allocated six minutes for the first questioner of each party as follows: Round 1: Conservative Party, Liberal Party, Bloc Québécois, New Democratic Party; for the second and subsequent rounds, the order and time for questioning be as follows: Conservative Party, five minutes; Liberal Party, five minutes; Conservative Party, five minutes; Liberal Party, five minutes; Bloc Québécois, two and a half minutes; New Democratic Party, two and a half minutes.</QuotePara>
                </Quote>
              </ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6284689">Is that motion understood by everyone?</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6284690">I see Kristina's hand up first. </ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <FloorLanguage language="FR">[<I>Translation</I>]</FloorLanguage>
          <Intervention Type="" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="10946279">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="269134" Type="47">Ms. Kristina Michaud (Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, BQ)</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6284691">Mr. Chair, I believe the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs agreed to a new method, whereby the two and a half minutes allocated to the Bloc Québécois and the NDP respectively in the second round were moved to immediately after the first five minutes allocated to the Conservatives and Liberals respectively. The Conservatives and Liberals then have another five minutes each to complete the second round.</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6284692">I'm not sure whether there was agreement among the party whips to do it that way, but it would ensure that the last parties on the list, which have the least amount of speaking time, aren't always cut off at the end. I know the idea was discussed, so I just want to know where things stand.</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <FloorLanguage language="EN">[<I>English</I>]</FloorLanguage>
          <Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" id="10946286">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="269132" Type="35">The Chair</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6284693">Are you moving that as an amendment, Ms. Michaud?</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <FloorLanguage language="FR">[<I>Translation</I>]</FloorLanguage>
          <Intervention Type="" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="10946287">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="269134" Type="47">Ms. Kristina Michaud</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6284694">Yes.</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <FloorLanguage language="EN">[<I>English</I>]</FloorLanguage>
          <Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" id="10946291">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="269132" Type="35">The Chair</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6284695">The first round would remain the same. In the second round, just so that I understand it, the Conservatives would be five minutes and then the Bloc would be two and a half.</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="10946292">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="264485" Type="47">Mr. Jack Harris</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6284696">It would turn to the Liberals.</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" id="10946295">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="269132" Type="35">The Chair</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6284697">I'm sorry. It would be the Liberals with five, and then the Bloc with two and a half...? </ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="10946299">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="264317" Type="47">Ms. Pam Damoff</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6284698">It would be the Conservatives and Liberals with five, then the Bloc with two and a half, the NDP with two and a half, the Conservatives with five, and the Liberals with five. Isn't that right?</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="10946300">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="264485" Type="47">Mr. Jack Harris</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6284699">That's the PROC recommendation.</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="10946303">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="264317" Type="47">Ms. Pam Damoff</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6284700">If we're going to do that, Chair, it's important that we reduce the amount of witness time, even though you do an outstanding job of trying to keep everybody in line. I would suggest, even though it's at the discretion of the chair, that witnesses be given five to seven minutes. Then we can determine, depending on the panel, whether it will be five or seven. We've actually done that in the past.</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" id="10946307">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="269132" Type="35">The Chair</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6284701">Do you mean 10 or seven minutes?</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="10946312">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="264317" Type="47">Ms. Pam Damoff</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6284702">No, I mean five to seven. Witnesses would be given five to seven minutes for their opening statements.</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" id="10946317">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="269132" Type="35">The Chair</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6284703"> I see.</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="10946318">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="264317" Type="47">Ms. Pam Damoff</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6284704">The rest is the same, and then there are the changes Kristina put forward.</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="10946320">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="264445" Type="47">Mr. Damien Kurek</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6284705">In the spirit of collaboration—it seems this is a group motion—I would add, after the “five minutes for opening statements”, “whenever possible witnesses provide the committee with their opening statements 72 hours in advance”.</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6284706"> Mr. Chair, is it amenable to you to have this collaborative effort on this amendment? </ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" id="10946322">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="269132" Type="35">The Chair</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6284707">That's a good idea.</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6284708">Looking to the clerk here, does it need to be part of the routine motions? </ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6284709">That idea of requiring 72 hours, Damien, are you making it a requirement?</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="10946327">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="264445" Type="47">Mr. Damien Kurek</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6284710">I would add the words, “that whenever possible witnesses provide the committee with their opening statements 72 hours in advance”.</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Timestamp Hr="15" Mn="55">(1555)</Timestamp>
          <Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" id="10946329">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="269132" Type="35">The Chair</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6284711">We have three amendments, if you will, running simultaneously here. Kristina's motion is first up. The question I have of Kristina is whether she perceives Pam's amendment as a friendly amendment.</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <FloorLanguage language="FR">[<I>Translation</I>]</FloorLanguage>
          <Intervention Type="" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="10946331">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="269134" Type="47">Ms. Kristina Michaud</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6284712">Yes, I consider it a friendly amendment.</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <FloorLanguage language="EN">[<I>English</I>]</FloorLanguage>
          <Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" id="10946333">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="269132" Type="35">The Chair</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6284713">That takes care of two of the amendments. The third one is what Damien was referencing.</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6284714">You're saying, wherever possible, the brief be submitted 72 hours in advance. The major problem is translation, but that's another issue.</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="10946337">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="264445" Type="47">Mr. Damien Kurek</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6284715">The 72 hours are for the purpose of translation. That gives a day or two for translation, and then there is still time for committee members to review and have the briefs with them as statements are made. I'm trying to accommodate the good work our translators do.</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="10946344">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="264317" Type="47">Ms. Pam Damoff</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6284716">Could the clerk speak to the translation issue? We all want to see the statements ahead of time, but that doesn't always happen. Sometimes people send them only in English.</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6284717">I'm just curious. It's “wherever possible”, so it doesn't really matter but....</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="10946345">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="264130" Type="27">The Clerk</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6284718">There is no issue with the motion as it is right now. Obviously, sometimes it won't be possible to get briefs translated in time. You also have some witnesses who don't actually prepare notes. </ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6284719">However, I'll give these instructions and clearly communicate them to the witnesses, and it will help them understand the expectations of the members.</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" id="10946353">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="264444" Type="47">Mr. Glen Motz (Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, CPC)</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6284720">Chair, I just want clarification on what Pam recommended on the five to seven minutes. On which presentations do we decide to give them five minutes and on which presentations do we decide to give them seven minutes? If you're bored and falling asleep, obviously it's going to be five minutes.</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6284721">How do we determine that? Will it always be seven minutes then? As a committee, I think we need to say it's either five minutes or seven minutes, because it's going to be tough to determine what you give.</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" id="10946357">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="269132" Type="35">The Chair</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6284722">You are giving the discretion to the chair here, Glen.</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="10946358">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="264444" Type="47">Mr. Glen Motz</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6284723">That's my concern.</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" id="10946359">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="269132" Type="35">The Chair</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6284724">Yes, I know.</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="10946361">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="264317" Type="47">Ms. Pam Damoff</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6284725">Could I just clarify that, Chair?</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" id="10946362">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="269132" Type="35">The Chair</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6284726">Yes.</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="10946363">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="264317" Type="47">Ms. Pam Damoff</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6284727">In the past what we have done is this. If we had three panellists, we went to five minutes, and if we had two, we had seven minutes. That's why I suggested the five and seven. I don't really think that we should be too prescriptive on this, but that's been the precedent before: Three panellists were given five minutes and two panellists were given a longer time.</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6284728">That's why I suggested five and seven, Glen.</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="10946365">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="264444" Type="47">Mr. Glen Motz</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6284729">Thank you.</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" id="10946368">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="269132" Type="35">The Chair</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6284730">It is tough trying to keep people within the timelines. One becomes quite unpopular quite quickly, as you know, Glen.</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6284731">Go ahead, Kamal.</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="10946371">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="264319" Type="47">Ms. Kamal Khera (Brampton West, Lib.)</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6284732">I don't have anything to add, Chair.</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" id="10946372">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="269132" Type="35">The Chair</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6284733">Is there anyone else?</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6284734">Go ahead, Jack.</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="10946373">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="264485" Type="47">Mr. Jack Harris</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6284735">Thank you, Chair. I was just about to praise you for the excellent discretion you've exercised at this committee in the past, just to put Glen a little bit at ease.</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6284736">I think the rule of five to seven minutes, normally depending on the number of witnesses, is fair. I am satisfied that the chair has been quite able to exercise discretion in a fair manner. Some people like to go on for more than five minutes, as you may have noticed. Some witnesses, in fact, feel deprived if they can't say more than five minutes' worth of stuff, so that's okay.</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6284737">On the 72 hours, that may be a bit onerous for some unprofessional witnesses or people who might not normally prepare well in advance. I would be okay with that. The chair has acknowledged that he works with the witnesses, and you can't force people to give things 72 hours in advance or refuse them to be able to testify. I think that would limit the ability of the committee to hear evidence.</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6284738">As long as it's seen that “wherever possible” is broadly interpreted by the chair and by the clerk in working with witnesses, I'd be happy with that, too. The rest is fine.</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Timestamp Hr="16" Mn="00">(1600)</Timestamp>
          <Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" id="10946382">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="269132" Type="35">The Chair</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6284739">Go ahead, Glen.</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="10946385">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="264444" Type="47">Mr. Glen Motz</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6284740">I just want to clarify the motion that we're on. I'm somewhat confused about it.</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6284741">The witnesses are going to be given five to seven minutes for their opening statements, and whenever possible, the witnesses will provide their opening statements to the committee in advance.</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" id="10946387">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="269132" Type="35">The Chair</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6284742">Yes, 72 hours.</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="10946389">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="264444" Type="47">Mr. Glen Motz</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6284743">Right. </ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6284744">At the discretion of the chair, the questioning of witnesses will be allocated to six minutes for the first questioner of each party—</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" id="10946390">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="269132" Type="35">The Chair</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6284745">No. There's no discretion of the chair.</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="10946392">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="264444" Type="47">Mr. Glen Motz</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6284746">We'll take that out. They'll be allocated six minutes for the first questioner of each party in round one—Conservative, Liberal, Bloc and NDP. In the second and subsequent rounds, the order and timing is Conservatives and Liberals for five, Bloc and NDP for two and a half each, in that order, and if there's any time left, Conservatives followed by Liberals.</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" id="10946393">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="269132" Type="35">The Chair</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6284747">I'm sorry, I [<I>Technical difficulty—Editor</I>].</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="10946394">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="264485" Type="47">Mr. Jack Harris</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6284748">We lost you, John.</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="10946397">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="264317" Type="47">Ms. Pam Damoff</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6284749">You're on mute again, John.</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" id="10946400">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="269132" Type="35">The Chair</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6284750">I think there's a “mute somebody or other” out there that's frustrating me.</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6284751">Glen, I jumped in a little quickly on you. There is discretion for the chair to reduce time for questioning. It says “at the discretion of the chair” twice: first with respect to the witnesses, and second with respect to the members. That has been routine. You just have to have it because you can't control time in this business.</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6284752">Does everybody have an understanding of this motion? Are we good on it? Does anybody need it read back by the clerk? Do we understand what we're voting on?</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6284753">(Motion agreed to [<I>See Minutes of Proceedings</I>])</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" id="10946404">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="269132" Type="35">The Chair</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6284754"> Thank you very much.</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6284755">The next motion concerns working meals.</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="10946405">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="264317" Type="47">Ms. Pam Damoff</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6284756">No, it's document distribution.</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" id="10946407">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="269132" Type="35">The Chair</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6284757">Did I miss something? </ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6284758">Oh yes, I did; it's document distribution.</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="10947547">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="264445" Type="47">Mr. Damien Kurek</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6284759">I have a point of order, with an information question.</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6284760">Is this being broadcast?</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="Debate" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="10947548">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="269132" Type="35">The Chair</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6284761">Yes, we are in public.</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="Debate" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="10946410">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="264445" Type="47">Mr. Damien Kurek</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6284762">Then let me ask through you, Mr. Chair, to the clerk, is it just online that it's being broadcast? How would my staff be able to access it?</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="10946412">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="264130" Type="27">The Clerk</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6284763">Mr. Chair, there are two ways. It's broadcast on ParlVu, but there's also a phone number they can call to access the live feed.</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" id="10946414">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="269132" Type="35">The Chair</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6284764">Are we good with that? </ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6284765">Okay.</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6284766">I'm sorry, I skipped document distribution. The motion for it is:</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6284767">
                <Quote>
                  <QuotePara Align="Left" IndentFirst="2" IndentRest="2">That only the clerk of the committee be authorized to distribute documents to members of the committee and only when such documents exist in both official languages, and that witnesses be advised accordingly.</QuotePara>
                </Quote>
              </ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6284768">There's the motion on the floor. Is there any discussion?</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="10946418">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="264317" Type="47">Ms. Pam Damoff</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6284769">I'll move it, Chair.</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" id="10946421">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="269132" Type="35">The Chair</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6284770">Is there any discussion?</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6284771">(Motion agreed to)</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6284772">
                <B>The Chair:</B> I'll keep on working here, but I wonder, out of curiosity, whether there are any further changes to the routine motions that we had before.</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6284773">On working meals, the motion is: </ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6284774">
                <Quote>
                  <QuotePara Align="Left" IndentFirst="2" IndentRest="2">That the clerk of the committee be authorized to make the necessary arrangements to provide working meals for the committee and its subcommittees.</QuotePara>
                </Quote>
              </ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6284775">Can someone move that?</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="10946424">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="264445" Type="47">Mr. Damien Kurek</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6284776">I'd be happy to move it, Mr. Chair, and then I would make an amendment to the motion as well. </ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" id="10946425">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="269132" Type="35">The Chair</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6284777">Okay, the motion is on the floor, and you want to make an amendment. Go for it.</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="10946427">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="264445" Type="47">Mr. Damien Kurek</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6284778">In acknowledgement of the different times we're in, I move that “provided that members have confirmed their physical presence for the meeting” be added to the end of the working meals routine motion. </ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6284779">Thank you.</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Timestamp Hr="16" Mn="05">(1605)</Timestamp>
          <Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" id="10946431">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="269132" Type="35">The Chair</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6284780">I don't quite understand. Could you give me some explanation of what that means?</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="10946433">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="264445" Type="47">Mr. Damien Kurek</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6284781">Sure. Because we will have hybrid meetings, members should confirm physical attendance at the meeting, out of respect for those who are preparing the bagged lunches and whatnot for our meetings. For staff to prepare 12 meals when only four members will be present.... It's a very different set of circumstances to prepare for 12 than to prepare for four.</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="10946437">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="264485" Type="47">Mr. Jack Harris</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6284782">Does that mean, Chair, that if you're sitting in your office on Parliament Hill someone will bring you a bagged lunch, but no one will bring me one here in St. John's?</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" id="10946439">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="269132" Type="35">The Chair</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6284783">We'll fly one out for you directly, Jack.</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="10946440">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="264485" Type="47">Mr. Jack Harris</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6284784">Purolator's still working.</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="10946445">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="264317" Type="47">Ms. Pam Damoff</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6284785">I have a question. While we're in virtual Parliament, is the House even providing meals if people are physically in Ottawa?</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="10946446">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="264445" Type="47">Mr. Damien Kurek</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6284786">Mr. Chair, I can speak for that, having been on the ethics committee this summer. </ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6284787">They do provide bagged lunches. The staff at the House of Commons have done a great job, but this would give them an idea so that they know how much to prepare, especially in the hybrid setting in which you could have three members or you could have eight or 12 members. </ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6284788">It just ensures that we're respecting those who are doing the background work so that we can do our work.</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6284789">To address Mr. Harris's point, those in their offices wouldn't get the lunches but will enjoy them in the committee room. </ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" id="10946454">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="269132" Type="35">The Chair</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6284790">The way it would read, then, is “committee meals for the committee members present”. Is that right?</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="10946455">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="264445" Type="47">Mr. Damien Kurek</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6284791">I can read it again. The motion as written is this:</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6284792">
                <Quote>
                  <QuotePara Align="Left" IndentFirst="2" IndentRest="2">That the clerk of the committee be authorized to make the necessary arrangements to provide working meals for the committee and its subcommittees. </QuotePara>
                </Quote>
              </ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6284793">I suggest replacing the period with a comma and adding “provided that members have confirmed their physical presence for the meeting”. That is the addition.</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" id="10946458">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="269132" Type="35">The Chair</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6284794">It seems awfully awkward. Why not simply say, “for committee members present”?</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="10946459">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="264445" Type="47">Mr. Damien Kurek</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6284795">It's in order to give time for the staff to prepare accordingly, if it's a meeting that will be taking place over lunch.</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" id="10946461">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="269132" Type="35">The Chair</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6284796"> Okay.</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6284797">Is there any other discussion?</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="10946462">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="269133" Type="47">Mrs. Shannon Stubbs</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6284798">I agree with the change that Damien's trying to make because of our virtual scenario. We could all conceivably be present, but if we're not physically there, we don't want House administration to be running around, spending money or taking up their time to make meals people aren't going to eat.</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="10946464">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="264485" Type="47">Mr. Jack Harris</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6284799">This is not for this meeting we're having now, for example. It's only for a meeting that has a boardroom where there are actually people physically present in Ottawa. It doesn't quite say that, but okay.</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="10946467">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="269132" Type="35">The Chair</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6284800">Is there any other discussion?</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6284801">(Amendment agreed to)</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6284802">(Motion as amended agreed to)</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6284803">
                <B>The Chair:</B> We're on travel, accommodation and living expenses of witnesses. The motion would read:</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6284804">
                <Quote>
                  <QuotePara Align="Left" IndentFirst="2" IndentRest="2">That, if requested, reasonable travel, accommodation and living expenses be reimbursed to witnesses not exceeding two representatives per organization; and that in exceptional circumstances, payment for more representatives per organization; and that in exceptional circumstances, payment for more representatives be made at the discretion of the Chair.</QuotePara>
                </Quote>
              </ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="10946475">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="264317" Type="47">Ms. Pam Damoff</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6284805">John, if the committee agrees, I will give you a motion to adopt the remaining routine motions in one vote. I think all the ones that needed changes have been dealt with now.</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="10946480">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="269132" Type="35">The Chair</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6284806">I'm looking for support to that effect. You're moving that as a motion, right?</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="10946482">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="264317" Type="47">Ms. Pam Damoff</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6284807">Yes, I am.</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6284808">(Motion agreed to [<I>See Minutes of Proceedings</I>])</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="10946484">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="269132" Type="35">The Chair</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6284809">Excellent. Thank you.</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6284810">I was rather hoping to go to subcommittee work. Let me take some guidance here from the clerk.</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6284811">You had sent me a motion that says that the subcommittee on general procedure be established, and be composed of five members, the chair, etc. In light of the motions we passed, do we need to deal with that motion?</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Timestamp Hr="16" Mn="10">(1610)</Timestamp>
          <Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="10946489">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="264130" Type="27">The Clerk</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6284812">Mr. Chair, the only problem is that as the motion is worded right now, I need to confirm with the whip of each party who will be a member of the subcommittee. That may delay us.</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6284813">If the committee wants to adopt a different motion and rescind the one that was adopted earlier, that's another option. Perhaps we could specify the actual people, and then in the future we could move again to the regular motion.</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="10946497">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="269132" Type="35">The Chair</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6284814">Okay.</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="10946499">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="264317" Type="47">Ms. Pam Damoff</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6284815"> Chair, I'm going to suggest moving a motion here and then that we move to subcommittee to develop a work plan and pick a date that people can put forward additional studies.</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6284816">The motion I want to bring is:</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6284817">
                <Quote>
                  <QuotePara Align="Left" IndentFirst="2" IndentRest="2">That, pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the committee undertake a study of systemic racism in policing services in Canada, in particular the RCMP, and that the evidence and documentation received by the committee during the First Session of the 43rd Parliament on the subject be taken into consideration by the committee in the current session. That the Committee report its findings to the House and that pursuant to Standing Order 109, the government table a comprehensive response to the report.</QuotePara>
                </Quote>
              </ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6284818">My wording would have been that we continue a study except we really can't. This was Jack's initiative in the summer, so basically we would be finishing the good work we started in the summer.</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6284819"> I'm getting ahead a bit, but perhaps that gives us the ability to get the clerk working on this. We can move to the subcommittee whenever he has the names to develop a work plan. Then perhaps we could pick a date as a group for all parties to submit additional ideas for studies, and then we can hash that out in the steering committee.</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="10946514">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="269132" Type="35">The Chair</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6284820">That's a motion properly before the committee.</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6284821">Is there any discussion?</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="10946517">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="264485" Type="47">Mr. Jack Harris</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6284822">I don't think it needs a seconder, but I will second it in any event.</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6284823">Yes, I am in complete agreement with that approach, Pam, and thank you for preparing that motion because, of course, the study is no more until we revive it. I think that effectively revives the study and allows us to consider all the evidence, and to hear more. That would be totally appropriate. I don't know how long it's going to take to know who is going to be on the subcommittee. I don't think there's much doubt about that.</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6284824">Perhaps there are a number of other studies I have given consideration to, but I didn't think today was the day we were going to talk about them. If we could proceed with whatever we have to do to continue the study we're adopting and, at the same time, set a date for a steering or subcommittee meeting, I think by then we would have things in place from the whips to allow the subcommittee to meet.</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" id="10946522">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="269132" Type="35">The Chair</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6284825"> Is there any further discussion?</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6284826">Ms. Michaud.</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <FloorLanguage language="FR">[<I>Translation</I>]</FloorLanguage>
          <Intervention Type="" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="10946523">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="269134" Type="47">Ms. Kristina Michaud</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6284827">I was going to move more or less the same motion as Ms. Damoff, so I'm obviously in favour of it. However, could we get it in writing so it's all spelled out?</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6284828">Next, I'd like to know whether we're adopting motions, as I have others to put forward. Is now the time for that?</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <FloorLanguage language="EN">[<I>English</I>]</FloorLanguage>
          <Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" id="10946527">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="269132" Type="35">The Chair</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6284829"> Pam's initial motion is to get the work of the committee started, specifically on the racism study. Meanwhile, the subcommittee would be properly constituted, and we would then, as a subcommittee, pick a date to get together to deal with other issues to be pursued, other studies to be undertaken, and set out a work plan for the committee. </ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6284830">Is it the will of the committee to, first of all, deal with Pam's motion?</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="10946534">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="264445" Type="47">Mr. Damien Kurek</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6284831">To clarify, are there two motions on the floor, one to deal with the systemic racism study, and then another to assign the subcommittee the ability to determine—</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Timestamp Hr="16" Mn="15">(1615)</Timestamp>
          <Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" id="10946537">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="269132" Type="35">The Chair</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6284832">No, at this point there is only one motion properly on the floor.</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="10946542">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="264444" Type="47">Mr. Glen Motz</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6284833">I don't have an issue with the first part of Pam's motion on studying racism. My concern is that any other motions that Kristina, Jack or any of my colleagues on the Conservative side want to bring forward on a study are effectively going to be relegated to the subcommittee to decide. Those are conversations the entire committee should be having on what studies we're going to be moving forward with.</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6284834">I'm prepared to suggest to Pam that we amend the motion to say that if you want to study systemic racism, let's deal with that in a motion. If we're going to deal with anything else besides that, whether it be subcommittees or other motions, then we deal with those separately. That would be my recommendation.</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="10946549">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="264445" Type="47">Mr. Damien Kurek</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6284835">I would agree with my colleague Glen. It seems to me that one of the most valuable aspects of the committee format is to ensure that the subjects of studies and whatnot can be debated in a format where we can give appropriate scrutiny.</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6284836">The subcommittee is very valuable, and in terms of work plans for any particular motion, I 100% agree. However, in terms of the work of the committee, I'm not comfortable with that being part of a motion that would effectively reduce any of our members' ability, who are not on the subcommittee, to move forward with really anything that's of merit that this committee may or may not study. </ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" id="10946551">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="269132" Type="35">The Chair</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6284837">For procedural cleanliness, can we deal with the motion? Then, if either Glen or Damien wish to discuss further issues at the committee rather than at the subcommittee, a motion can be moved to that effect.</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="10946559">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="264485" Type="47">Mr. Jack Harris</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6284838">Can I jump in? I appreciate what both Glen and Damien were saying. My understanding is that the subcommittee doesn't make decisions as to which studies will be pursued. The committee may discuss various subjects and recommend certain subjects, but nothing can be decided by the subcommittee other than to send a report to the committee. </ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6284839">If there needs to be preliminary discussion by the full committee, then that's a different matter. I don't particularly see anything wrong with that, but normally, we have proceeded the other way. However, that's a matter for the committee to decide, I guess. </ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" id="10946563">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="269132" Type="35">The Chair</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6284840">To go back, can we deal with Pam's motion? Then we'll move to the concerns raised by Damien and Glen, and Jack can make his point.</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="10946569">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="264446" Type="47">Mr. Tako Van Popta</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6284841">Just for clarification on Pam's motion about systemic racism, was there included in her motion some language about how many hours or days or meetings we're going to dedicate to that study?</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" id="10946577">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="269132" Type="35">The Chair</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6284842">Pam.</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="10946579">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="264317" Type="47">Ms. Pam Damoff</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6284843">No, there was not, and deliberately, because even though this is a brand new Parliament, I don't want to be that prescriptive. We had picked witnesses from before. That's why I suggested the subcommittee could do a work plan. I think we had two meetings left, but there were three witnesses per meeting. Jack mentioned that there are some people he'd like to hear from. I think cramming the three witnesses into one meeting is a challenge. We did it because it was the summer and we were trying to get in as much as we could. </ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6284844">Even if we only went with the same witnesses we had last time, I would strongly urge that we have only two witnesses per meeting to allow for proper questioning of the witnesses. For anyone who was on the committee when we had three, and for some of them I think we had four witnesses, it really did a disservice to the testimony we were given.</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6284845">So I did not put a number of meetings on it. Having said that, we've already held quite a few meetings on it, so there's not an awful lot left for us to do. </ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6284846">I'll just leave it there.</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Timestamp Hr="16" Mn="20">(1620)</Timestamp>
          <Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="10946586">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="269132" Type="35">The Chair</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6284847">Shannon.</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="10946588">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="269133" Type="47">Mrs. Shannon Stubbs</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6284848">Thank you, Chair.</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6284849">To that point, Pam, I think it would be beneficial to add in a time frame and some specificity around the remaining meetings. I would suggest two. The reason I suggest two for the remaining meetings is that there have already been six meetings, and 26 witnesses participated in this important study previously. Although it is a new Parliament, we certainly, I would think, face no barriers in terms of calling on their testimony and their good work and sharing their experiences here.</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6284850"> I also note that in 2019 at this committee there was a study on crime in rural areas—thank you for taking that on—and a study on indigenous people in the federal corrections system. Both were eight meetings in total, so it seems to me that it's reasonable for us to say that we can wrap up this important work with two remaining meetings. </ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6284851">The other reason I would say this is that I think we all want to get to better outcomes. The longer we have meetings, the longer we're held up from moving forward with substantive recommendations and a report to achieve both a highlight of the concerns on this issue and also a move to substantive recommendations to stamp out instances of racism, to which we are all unanimously opposed, and actually get to making things better on this issue in Canada. </ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6284852">That's why I would propose, if members would support it, adding in a timeline for a completion of this study and then to dictate our work from there.</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="10946605">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="269132" Type="35">The Chair</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6284853">Glen, before I turn to Kristina, Jack and then Joël, I just got a note from the clerk saying that without your headset on, you get no interpretation. Maybe you're one of those guys who don't need any interpretation. </ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="10946610">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="264444" Type="47">Mr. Glen Motz</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6284854">I borrowed this headset. I was told by the person I borrowed it from in the office next door that it keeps cutting out. I will try it. Hopefully, it doesn't cut out anymore. </ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="10946613">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="269132" Type="35">The Chair</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6284855">Thanks.</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6284856">We have Kristina, Jack and then Joël.</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <FloorLanguage language="FR">[<I>Translation</I>]</FloorLanguage>
          <Intervention Type="" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="10946615">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="269134" Type="47">Ms. Kristina Michaud</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6284857">I'd like Ms. Damoff to read out the motion. I'd also like to know whether we can move amendments to the motion before it is put to a vote.</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <FloorLanguage language="EN">[<I>English</I>]</FloorLanguage>
          <Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="10946617">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="269132" Type="35">The Chair</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6284858">Yes, we can do that.</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6284859">Pam, do you want to read out the motion again so that we all know what we're talking about here?</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6284860">Your mike is on mute.</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="10946622">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="264317" Type="47">Ms. Pam Damoff</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6284861">Oh. I'm pulling a John McKay here.</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6284862">
                <B>The Chair:</B> That's right.</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6284863">
                <B>Ms. Pam Damoff:</B> Kristina, I was unable to share this motion ahead of time because the committee wasn't constituted. I do have it translated, but I'll read it again:</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6284864">
                <Quote>
                  <QuotePara Align="Left" IndentFirst="2" IndentRest="2">That, pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the committee undertake a study into systemic racism in policing in Canada and in particular the RCMP, and that the evidence and documentation received by the committee during the First Session of the 43rd Parliament on the subject be taken into consideration by the committee in the current session; that the committee report its findings to the House; and that, pursuant to Standing Order 109, the committee request that the Government table a comprehensive response to the report.</QuotePara>
                </Quote>
              </ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6284865">I believe it's the motion I have on the table, is it not, Chair?</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" id="10946626">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="269132" Type="35">The Chair</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6284866"> Yes.</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="10946627">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="264317" Type="47">Ms. Pam Damoff</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6284867">It's exactly the same motion that we passed in the last session of Parliament, just with the addition that we bring the evidence from the previous session into this session. That's the only change that's been made to the motion we adopted.</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" id="10946628">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="269132" Type="35">The Chair</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6284868">Kristina.</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <FloorLanguage language="FR">[<I>Translation</I>]</FloorLanguage>
          <Intervention Type="" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="10946630">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="269134" Type="47">Ms. Kristina Michaud</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6284869">Thank you, Mr. Chair and Ms. Damoff.</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6284870">That's great. I wanted to add that the work done previously be given serious consideration, even though this is a new session of Parliament.</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6284871">I would even say that we should specify a date for the tabling of the report. There is consensus on this issue: everyone wants things to progress quickly so our findings can be reported to the House in short order. With your agreement, I would suggest including a specific date, before January 2021. I'm not sure how long it normally takes to write a report. The clerk could enlighten me on that. I think we need to deal with this issue expeditiously so the committee can move on to its next study. I know a number of topics are on the list.</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Timestamp Hr="16" Mn="25">(1625)</Timestamp>
          <FloorLanguage language="EN">[<I>English</I>]</FloorLanguage>
          <Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" id="10946632">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="269132" Type="35">The Chair</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6284872">We're getting a fair number of proposed amendments. Why don't I do it this way? Why don't we go through the discussion first, exhaust the discussion, and then we'll go back to the amendments as to the number of meetings and an end date?</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6284873"> Jack.</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="10946634">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="264485" Type="47">Mr. Jack Harris</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6284874">Thank you, Mr. Chair.</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6284875">I'm going to suggest that Pam's motion is probably sufficient for this meeting. The decisions about whether we should have one meeting, or two or three or four, are premature at this point, unless someone has a desire to compress the study.</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6284876">We have a number of new members on the committee. We're bringing new evidence back in as a result of the motion that was passed. People should have a chance to review it and see if it's complete.</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6284877"> There are a number of topics that we did discuss, and as Pam pointed out, some of our witnesses, even though valuable.... If you had three witnesses appearing and making presentations in one hour, quite often you didn't have a lot of time to ask questions. You couldn't ask three people questions. If you were lucky, you had a thorough opportunity with one. I think we do need time to consider that.</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6284878"> The steering committee may make recommendations to the group. People will have their opinions and make a decision. A full committee would still make the decision. I think there needs to be an opportunity for people to say what they would do with those meetings, what aspects were not covered or ought to be covered.</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6284879"> I'm not going to get into some suggestions that I had, but there are one or two very important issues—contract policing, for example—that we didn't really get into very much. I don't know if we had it as part of our original work plan.</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6284880"> I'm not interested in having a full fall being spent on this committee, by no means. I have four or five ideas of my own, and I'm sure committee members will have others that we need to put into the mix to see what we do next. I would certainly think that either the....</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6284881"> On the timing of the report, we could decide that today, although, again, I think that if we leave it to the subcommittee to at least discuss these things and come up with a collective recommendation, as opposed to something in the spur of the.... It's nothing to negate the thought that went into your motion, Kristina, but to at least think about it and have an opportunity to talk to the clerk about what's realistic in terms of the committee, the analysts' work and all that. I think we might get a better idea of how quickly we can do this. That just seems to me to make sense.</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" id="10946645">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="269132" Type="35">The Chair</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6284882">Before I call on Joël, I'll just mention that you've all been mailed the motion. It should be in your box.</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6284883">Joël.</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <FloorLanguage language="FR">[<I>Translation</I>]</FloorLanguage>
          <Intervention Type="" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="10946649">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="264320" Type="47">Mr. Joël Lightbound</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6284884">Thank you, Mr. Chair.</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6284885">I agree with Mr. Harris that we shouldn't decide on a set number of meetings and we should let the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure figure it out. If it's the committee's will, perhaps we could establish a maximum number of meetings—say, six—and let the subcommittee figure out exactly how many we need. Realistically, I think we need more than two meetings to dive back into the study we started in the summer and to instruct the analysts.</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <FloorLanguage language="EN">[<I>English</I>]</FloorLanguage>
          <Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" id="10946653">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="269132" Type="35">The Chair</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6284886"> Does anyone else want to speak to the main motion? If there is no one to speak to the main motion, then I want to go to Shannon. </ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6284887">You're going to move, as an amendment, your limitation to two meetings. </ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="10946657">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="269133" Type="47">Mrs. Shannon Stubbs</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6284888">I think I pick up from Jack's comments, and the comments around the table, that there doesn't seem to be an appetite for setting limits on the number of meetings. </ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6284889">I would still encourage that to happen, for the reasons that have been discussed. I will suggest, and seek to discuss right after this, that if we do vote in favour of continuing the systemic racism study, in particular with no concrete timeline for us to put forward recommendations to take action, we also seek to move to bring back the Parole Board study into the Levesque murder, because there were only two meetings done with five witnesses heard on that study. In the exact same thought process and arguments that have been made by our members about this study, I'll seek to have that continued by our committee. </ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6284890">That is an additional reason why we should be mindful of timelines on these studies, because we'll need to continue with that important work and have time for both of those things to be accomplished. </ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Timestamp Hr="16" Mn="30">(1630)</Timestamp>
          <Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" id="10946659">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="269132" Type="35">The Chair</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6284891">I interpret that as withdrawing your limitation. </ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="10946660">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="269133" Type="47">Mrs. Shannon Stubbs</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6284892">Yes. </ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" id="10946661">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="269132" Type="35">The Chair</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6284893">Next was Kristina. </ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6284894">You wanted to set an outside date. Do you want to move that as a motion?</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <FloorLanguage language="FR">[<I>Translation</I>]</FloorLanguage>
          <Intervention Type="" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="10946662">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="269134" Type="47">Ms. Kristina Michaud</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6284895">Mr. Lightbound made a good point. Before I move an amendment, I'd like the clerk to clarify a few things for me. Is the time frame I suggested realistic? Does it give us enough time to get everything ready, write the report and so forth?</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6284896">I'd like to hear what the clerk thinks.</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <FloorLanguage language="EN">[<I>English</I>]</FloorLanguage>
          <Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" id="10946663">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="269132" Type="35">The Chair</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6284897">We have a very learned clerk, and he has many opinions. I'm sure he can express himself. </ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <FloorLanguage language="FR">[<I>Translation</I>]</FloorLanguage>
          <Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="10946664">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="264130" Type="27">The Clerk</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6284898">Thank you for the question, Ms. Michaud.</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6284899">It's a bit hard right now to give you an answer, since the parties are in the midst of hashing out which committees are going to meet when and how often. That means we still don't know whether the committee is going to have the same meeting frequency as before, in other words, every week, twice a week. Until I have a specific timetable for the committee, it will be hard to help you figure out dates.</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <FloorLanguage language="EN">[<I>English</I>]</FloorLanguage>
          <Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" id="10946665">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="269132" Type="35">The Chair</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6284900">Kristina, do you still want to pursue your proposal in the form of a motion?</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <FloorLanguage language="FR">[<I>Translation</I>]</FloorLanguage>
          <Intervention Type="" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="10946666">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="269134" Type="47">Ms. Kristina Michaud</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6284901">In this case, I think it's reasonable not to pursue the amendment, so I'll withdraw it.</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <FloorLanguage language="EN">[<I>English</I>]</FloorLanguage>
          <Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" id="10946667">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="269132" Type="35">The Chair</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6284902">Pam.</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="10946668">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="264317" Type="47">Ms. Pam Damoff</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6284903">If we're not going ahead, I was thinking that when we table the report in the House, perhaps we can include something in the report itself about having the government report back by a date.</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6284904">There's so much uncertainty right now, and if Kristina is not going forward, then I can just let that go. </ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" id="10946669">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="269132" Type="35">The Chair</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6284905">At this point, unless there is other discussion, Pam's motion, as read into the record, is the only thing to be voted on. We would then move to Damien and Glen's concern about the discussion of what the other priorities of the committee are. </ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6284906">Is there any other discussion on Pam's motion? </ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6284907">(Motion agreed to)</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6284908">
                <B>The Chair:</B> Before I ask Damien and Glen to speak on other things that they feel concerned about, the clerk has sent me a note about the state of the ability to hold meetings virtually and otherwise, making it difficult for him to talk about timelines and the frequency of our meetings. </ParaText>
              <FloorLanguage language="FR">[<I>Translation</I>]</FloorLanguage>
              <ParaText id="6284909">Mr. Clerk, I'll let you explain.</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <FloorLanguage language="EN">[<I>English</I>]</FloorLanguage>
          <Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="10946674">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="264130" Type="27">The Clerk</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6284910"> It's pretty much what I said in French the first time around. The parties are currently negotiating which committees are going to sit and at what frequency they will sit. This means that, at the moment, it's impossible for me to know how many meetings we have in the next few weeks or the next months. It makes it very difficult for me to assist members in planning their work. That's why I'm not giving you much information in terms of deadlines at this point.</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Timestamp Hr="16" Mn="35">(1635)</Timestamp>
          <Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" id="10946681">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="269132" Type="35">The Chair</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6284911">Thank you.</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6284912">Damien or Glen, do you want to speak?</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6284913">Damien.</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="10946682">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="264445" Type="47">Mr. Damien Kurek</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6284914">Thank you, Mr. Chair. I appreciate that.</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6284915">I think the confusion was in Ms. Damoff's introduction. It made it sound as though the motion was limiting the ability of the committee to discuss other items. I'm comfortable with moving forward on the committee business as scheduled, although I would make one note. Certainly I appreciate seeing all of you virtually and the circumstances that prohibit many of our regular activities as members of Parliament, but I would note the significant value of being able to have meetings in person and certainly would encourage, for sure, the hybrid setting.</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6284916">As I mentioned before, I did have the opportunity to do a number of in-person committee meetings this summer that were very good. We talked a lot about the co-operation between members, and certainly I think a physical presence is a significant part of ensuring that can be the case going forward. I would make that note, but I appreciate Ms. Damoff's entire motion and the clarifications that it brought to the future work of the committee.</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" id="10946686">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="269132" Type="35">The Chair</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6284917">Thank you.</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6284918">Glen, did you want to add anything?</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" id="10946688">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="269132" Type="35">The Chair</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6284920">We still can't hear you, Glen.</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="10946687">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="264317" Type="47">Ms. Pam Damoff</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6284919">I can't hear him.</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="10946690">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="264317" Type="47">Ms. Pam Damoff</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6284921">Chair, on a point of order, if the interpreters can't hear him, I don't think he can participate.</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="10946692">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="264444" Type="47">Mr. Glen Motz</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6284922">I can't help it. There's a headset, but it doesn't work. I'm sorry.</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="10946693">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="264317" Type="47">Ms. Pam Damoff</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6284923">No, we need it to be bilingual. </ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6284924">Glen, I'm not trying to be difficult, but it's not fair to our francophone members if they're not getting translation.</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="10946695">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="264445" Type="47">Mr. Damien Kurek</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6284925">Can I make a suggestion? Glen, you can call in with a telephone and use the telephone as a microphone that has the same quality as a telephone conversation. That might be an intermediate....</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="10946697">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="264444" Type="47">Mr. Glen Motz</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6284926">Yes. </ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6284927"> Chair, I have a motion or two to present. I will do that shortly.</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" id="10946698">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="269132" Type="35">The Chair</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6284928">Yes.</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6284929">While Glen is dialing up, we'll go to Gagan.</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="10946699">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="264322" Type="47">Mr. Gagan Sikand (Mississauga—Streetsville, Lib.)</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6284930">I just want to flag that I also want to reintroduce my motion that I brought to the committee last time, on gang violence.</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" id="10946701">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="269132" Type="35">The Chair</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6284931">Okay.</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6284932">I need some guidance from the committee as to whether you wish to use the balance of the time, which would be until 5:30, to receive motions. I'm going to work on the assumption that once the motions are received, accepted and passed, they will then be referred to the subcommittee for work.</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6284933">Pam.</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="10946703">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="264317" Type="47">Ms. Pam Damoff</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6284934">Chair, in previous committees in the last Parliament, it was always helpful if we set a date. All of the motions could be sent in, and then all of us get an opportunity to read them and to think about amendments.</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6284935">We weren't able to give 48 hours' notice to do that, because we didn't have a committee, but I think we could just set a date and do it in quite short timing, have the opportunity to look at the studies and have an educated discussion on what we want to do as a committee moving forward. Once we decide on the studies, we can send it to the subcommittee. </ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6284936">It's difficult. Kristina had asked me to read the motion twice. We haven't seen any of the motions, and Glen is having difficulty with his audio. It has worked well on public safety in the last Parliament, and status of women, which I was on, so I would propose a date. Most people seem to have them already. Maybe we'd just go until Wednesday next week, and when all the studies are submitted to the clerk and distributed, then we can have a committee meeting, if that's the will of the committee, to go over them.</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" id="10946707">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="269132" Type="35">The Chair</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6284937"> Unfortunately, it would seem that Glen is still struggling. He would have precedence in terms of presenting, and then I think Gagan is up.</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6284938">I think the way Pam is suggesting is perfectly reasonable, but—</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="10946711">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="264322" Type="47">Mr. Gagan Sikand</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6284939">Sorry, Chair, I was just going to speak to that and say that I agree with her. I think that's a better way of going about it.</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Timestamp Hr="16" Mn="40">(1640)</Timestamp>
          <Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" id="10946713">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="269132" Type="35">The Chair</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6284940">Okay. That would effectively mean you would have to withdraw your intention to file a motion, if that's all right.</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="10946714">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="264322" Type="47">Mr. Gagan Sikand</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6284941">Provided that hers passes, yes.</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" id="10946715">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="269132" Type="35">The Chair</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6284942"> Well, that's at your risk.</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6284943">Jack.</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="10946717">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="264485" Type="47">Mr. Jack Harris</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6284944">If we're talking about the work for the balance of today's meeting, if the intention is that people want to move motions for studies, then Pam's was a particular motion that revived a study, which I think is in a different category. If people have new studies to do, and perhaps the one that Shannon had with respect to the study that was under way, they are in a different category. If there are new studies going on, I would propose.... </ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6284945">I mean, I have five suggested studies. I didn't come with motions today and I don't intend to present them today. They are things we could discuss at a meeting of the steering committee. One or two of them will maybe survive, or maybe none of them will. At least we could come back with the recommendations to the committee, and then the whole of the committee could deliberate on the value of each individual study.</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6284946"> However, to try to deal with them today, without everybody participating, I think would be defeating the collegiality that we talked about, the collaborative nature of the work we do. I know that everybody has pet ideas. I know I certainly have lots of them. I don't think that today is the right time to do it.</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6284947">If we had an opportunity for everybody to present their motions so we could have them together all at once when we're deliberating the priority that the committee as a whole wants to give them, I think that would be a more appropriate way to go. That's my view. It may not meet with the approval of the committee, but I think that's a better way to proceed.</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" id="10946721">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="269132" Type="35">The Chair</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6284948">I might well agree with you, but Glen has his motion up.</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6284949">I think I'm hearing something.</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="10946722">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="264444" Type="47">Mr. Glen Motz</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6284950">Can you hear me now?</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" id="10946723">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="269132" Type="35">The Chair</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6284951">I can hear you. The question is, does translation get you?</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6284952">
                <B>A voice:</B> This is interpretation. The sound is coming through loud and clear, Mr. Motz.</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6284953">
                <B>The Chair:</B> They can hear you.</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6284954">Okay. Proceed, Glen.</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="10946726">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="264444" Type="47">Mr. Glen Motz</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6284955">Thank you, Chair.</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6284956">I apologize to the committee. I should have known.... In any event, a new headset works wonders.</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6284957">Chair, if I may, I would like to propose the following motion: That, pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security request that the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness appear for a full two-hour meeting, at his earliest possible convenience, to answer questions about the Prime Minister's mandate letter to him; that the minister appear at the meeting exclusively for the purpose of the mandate letter and no other matters; and that this meeting be televised.</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6284958">That's my motion.</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" id="10946731">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="269132" Type="35">The Chair</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6284959">The motion is proper and in order, and this is what the committee is discussing. </ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6284960">Everyone has heard the motion. Is there any discussion?</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6284961">Pam.</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="10946734">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="264317" Type="47">Ms. Pam Damoff</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6284962">I have a question. </ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6284963">I know that when the minister appears before committee on other issues, like estimates, questions veer into whatever is in the headlines that week. I don't know how you say he can only talk about the mandate letter. </ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6284964">I think the minister would be happy to come. Normally he only comes for an hour, so I would propose an amendment to make it one hour. </ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6284965">I would remind our colleagues that if we're going to talk about his mandate letter, which I'm sure he would love to talk about, we stick to the mandate letter and don't use it as an opportunity to question what's in the headlines that week.</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" id="10946737">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="269132" Type="35">The Chair</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6284966">First of all, Pam, are you moving that as an amendment to Glen's motion?</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="10946739">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="264317" Type="47">Ms. Pam Damoff</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6284967"> Normally, the ministers would come for an hour and officials would come for an hour, so two hours seems a bit excessive for the minister. They don't normally come for the full two hours.</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" id="10946740">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="269132" Type="35">The Chair</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6284968">Glen, do you see that as friendly or unfriendly?</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="10946741">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="264444" Type="47">Mr. Glen Motz</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6284969">Well, Pam is friendly. The suggestion might be unfriendly. I think the fact that he hasn't been at this committee.... COVID has prevented that since he got his mandate letter.</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Timestamp Hr="16" Mn="45">(1645)</Timestamp>
          <Intervention Type="" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="10946743">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="264317" Type="47">Ms. Pam Damoff</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6284970">He actually has been to the committee, with all due respect.</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="10946744">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="269132" Type="35">The Chair</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6284971">He has.</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="10946745">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="264444" Type="47">Mr. Glen Motz</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6284972">Is this since he got his mandate letter?</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="10946746">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="269132" Type="35">The Chair</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6284973">Yes.</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="10946747">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="264444" Type="47">Mr. Glen Motz</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6284974">Fair enough, but I still propose that, because his portfolio is so broad and there are so many things going on, not only with respect to this issue we talked about with systemic racism and the parole, but also with respect to emergency preparedness and matters of public safety all across the spectrum, it would be great to have as much time as possible with the minister. Since we have only a two-hour window, having him here the entire time to answer questions, as opposed to his officials, would be of benefit to the committee members.</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="10946749">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="269132" Type="35">The Chair</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6284975">I'm working on the presumption that Pam is friendly and the amendment is not, so after the discussion we'll have to vote on the amendment to the motion first.</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6284976">Is there any further discussion?</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6284977">Pam.</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="10946751">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="264317" Type="47">Ms. Pam Damoff</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6284978">I have a question again. I'm assuming the opposition is going to want the minister to appear on estimates. Is it the will of the member that the minister come for two hours on his mandate letter and then come back to talk about estimates? I'm sure there's a timeline on those. That's another reason. He did appear in the summer before the committee for one hour with his officials. </ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6284979">That's just a question. Does he want the minister to come for the main estimates as well as for his mandate letter, or would they be combined as one?</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="10946754">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="269132" Type="35">The Chair</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6284980">Glen, do you want to respond to that before I go to Shannon?</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="10946756">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="264444" Type="47">Mr. Glen Motz</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6284981">I'll let Shannon go ahead.</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="10946757">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="269132" Type="35">The Chair</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6284982">Shannon.</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="10946760">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="269133" Type="47">Mrs. Shannon Stubbs</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6284983">Thank you, Mr. Chair.</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6284984">Indeed, the minister did come to the committee in the summer, but of course that was for the study on systemic racism.</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6284985">I think the importance of the position of the <Affiliation DbId="253386" Type="4">public safety minister</Affiliation> right now and the variety of initiatives that have happened under his portfolio, including his crucial position with what Canada is facing right now and the fact that he hasn't, in fact, appeared on his mandate letter, more than merits a two-hour appearance. We as committee members can then do our due diligence and our jobs, on behalf of the people we represent, to hold him to account on the status and the work he is doing based on his mandate.</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6284986"> As well, in this crucial time that we're apparently all in together, it is the perfect time—and urgent, in fact—for him to spend two hours with this committee.</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6284987"> Then he should join us again, as is his duty, in supplementary estimates separately.</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="10946764">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="269132" Type="35">The Chair</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6284988">Is there any other discussion?</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6284989">The procedure would mean that the first vote—and this will have to be a recorded vote—will be on Pam's motion that the timeline of the original motion be reduced from two hours to one.</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6284990">(Amendment negatived: nays 6; yeas 5 [<I>See Minutes of Proceedings</I>])</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6284991">
                <B>The Chair:</B> The amendment fails. </ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6284992">We now go to the main motion. Does everybody understand it or do you need any clarification?</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6284993">Jack.</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Timestamp Hr="16" Mn="50">(1650)</Timestamp>
          <Intervention Type="" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="10946771">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="264485" Type="47">Mr. Jack Harris</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6284994"> This is just a clarification. Is this intended, Glen, to supersede the other motion in terms of time, or is the time to be determined by the availability, whatever the recommendation of the subcommittee might be and the decision afterwards?</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6284995">What's your understanding?</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="10946772">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="264444" Type="47">Mr. Glen Motz</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6284996">Jack, I would suggest that's one of the logistical issues for the subcommittee to determine, based on the minister's schedule and the other studies that are under way.</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" id="10946773">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="269132" Type="35">The Chair</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6284997">Okay, we are ready to vote.</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6284998">(Motion agreed to: yeas 11; nays 0)</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6284999">
                <B>The Chair:</B> Are there any other items for discussion?</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6285000">Go ahead, Shannon.</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="10946775">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="269133" Type="47">Mrs. Shannon Stubbs</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6285001">Thank you, Chair.</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6285002">I do want to move a motion now, and it is relevant to Jack's comments about the differentiations between the motions on studies for future work and the one I am about to move.</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6285003">I want to move that our committee reconvene the study on the Parole Board and the circumstances that led to a young woman's death, which you were working on previously. Pam, you've said that the work is not done and that we must do more to prevent gender-based violence; and Joël, you have spoken very passionately about the importance of this work in the committee.</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6285004">In exactly the same framework and mindset in which we are continuing the previous study on systemic racism, I would make an argument that we have a duty to determine if there are systemic issues within the parole system that may put vulnerable women at risk and in danger. Certainly, because of the incident that occurred, I think it behooves us to continue with that work. That is in a separate category than other studies and other work that we might do in the future.</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6285005">Should I just move my motion on recommencing this study?</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" id="10946778">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="269132" Type="35">The Chair</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6285006">Yes, you could. Let's hear your motion first.</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="10946784">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="269133" Type="47">Mrs. Shannon Stubbs</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6285007"> I move that, pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security continue the study on the Parole Board and the circumstances that led to a young woman's death, as originally instructed by unanimous vote in the House of Commons on February 5, 2020, and that the committee report its findings to the House with recommendations.</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" id="10946787">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="269132" Type="35">The Chair</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6285008">The motion is properly in front of the committee.</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6285009">Before we commence discussion, I want to point out to the committee that the particular study in that particular motion was as a reference from the House, and all matters that are referred to committees die with prorogation.</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6285010">I don't want to pre-empt any conversation, and I don't know whether the clerk has any matter to add to it, but I think it is unique and distinct from the racism study that was initiated by the committee itself.</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6285011">Could I hear from the clerk as to whether what would otherwise be a motion that's properly before the committee would be in order?</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Timestamp Hr="16" Mn="55">(1655)</Timestamp>
          <Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="10946789">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="264130" Type="27">The Clerk</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6285012">Thank you, Mr. Chair.</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6285013">There's actually no objection, procedurally. If the committee wants to resume a previous study, it can do so. I might suggest a different wording, but other than that, there is no issue.</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" id="10946790">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="269132" Type="35">The Chair</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6285014"> What would the wording be if it was going to be different?</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="10946791">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="264130" Type="27">The Clerk</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6285015">If you wish, I can send a copy to all members, but in English it would be this: That, pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the committee undertake a study of the Parole Board and the circumstances that let to a young woman's death, and that the evidence and the documentation received by the committee during the First Session of the 43rd Parliament on the subject be taken into consideration by the committee in the current session.</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" id="10946793">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="269132" Type="35">The Chair</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6285016">So in effect, it's an end run on the reference from the House. Is that correct?</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="10946795">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="264130" Type="27">The Clerk</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6285017">I'm not sure what you mean by an “end run”.</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" id="10946797">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="269132" Type="35">The Chair</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6285018">Well, you're not referring back to the unanimous motion that sent it to this committee.</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="10946799">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="264130" Type="27">The Clerk</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6285019">Yes, that's correct. Basically, the motion relies on the committee's power to create its own studies.</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" id="10946800">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="269132" Type="35">The Chair</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6285020">Okay.</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6285021">Shannon, I'm assuming that is acceptable to you.</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6285022">
                <B>Mrs. Shannon Stubbs:</B> Yes.</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6285023">
                <B>The Chair:</B> Okay.</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6285024">Is there any discussion?</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6285025">Go ahead, Pam.</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="10946801">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="264317" Type="47">Ms. Pam Damoff</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6285026">I think Joël had his hand up first, Chair.</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" id="10946803">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="269132" Type="35">The Chair</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6285027">Sorry, Joël.</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <FloorLanguage language="FR">[<I>Translation</I>]</FloorLanguage>
          <Intervention Type="" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="10946805">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="264320" Type="47">Mr. Joël Lightbound</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6285028">I'd just like to thank Mrs. Stubbs.</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6285029">This is indeed an important motion. It deals with an issue that merits the same level of study as systemic racism. The subcommittee is probably in the best position to determine how many meetings we need for the study. I have confidence in the subcommittee to sort all those things out.</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <FloorLanguage language="EN">[<I>English</I>]</FloorLanguage>
          <Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" id="10946807">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="269132" Type="35">The Chair</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6285030">Okay.</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6285031">Is there any other discussion?</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6285032">Go ahead, Kristina.</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <FloorLanguage language="FR">[<I>Translation</I>]</FloorLanguage>
          <Intervention Type="" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="10946808">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="269134" Type="47">Ms. Kristina Michaud</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6285033">Thank you, Mr. Chair.</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6285034">I have an amendment to the motion in light of recent cases, especially the Cox case. I'd like to add the following:</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6285035">
                <Quote>
                  <QuotePara Align="Left" IndentFirst="2" IndentRest="2">…that the Committee also study a more recent case of a repeat offender who had committed violent sexual offences against young women and then committed another offence while on parole; and that the study be renamed the study on the Parole Board of Canada and the circumstances surrounding repeat sexual crimes against women by certain sex offenders.</QuotePara>
                </Quote>
              </ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <FloorLanguage language="EN">[<I>English</I>]</FloorLanguage>
          <Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" id="10946809">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="269132" Type="35">The Chair</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6285036">Kristina, could you go over that motion again, more slowly, so that interpretation can pick it up, please?</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="10946810">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="264130" Type="27">The Clerk</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6285037">Mr. Chair, perhaps I can send it by email.</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" id="10946811">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="269132" Type="35">The Chair</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6285038">Oh, okay.</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <FloorLanguage language="FR">[<I>Translation</I>]</FloorLanguage>
          <Intervention Type="" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="10946812">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="269134" Type="47">Ms. Kristina Michaud</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6285039">I can read it out as well.</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <FloorLanguage language="EN">[<I>English</I>]</FloorLanguage>
          <Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" id="10946814">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="269132" Type="35">The Chair</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6285040">In the meantime, read it again. It's a short motion.</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <FloorLanguage language="FR">[<I>Translation</I>]</FloorLanguage>
          <Intervention Type="" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="10946816">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="269134" Type="47">Ms. Kristina Michaud</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6285041">All right.</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6285042">
                <Quote>
                  <QuotePara Align="Left" IndentFirst="2" IndentRest="2">…that the Committee also study a more recent case of a repeat offender who had committed violent sexual offences against young women and then committed another offence while on parole; and that the study be renamed the study on the Parole Board of Canada and the circumstances surrounding repeat sexual crimes against women by certain sex offenders.</QuotePara>
                </Quote>
              </ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <FloorLanguage language="EN">[<I>English</I>]</FloorLanguage>
          <Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" id="10946817">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="269132" Type="35">The Chair</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6285043">Okay. I still don't have it on my...motion, but the first question would be whether Shannon sees that as a friendly amendment.</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="10946818">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="269133" Type="47">Mrs. Shannon Stubbs</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6285044">Yes, it's a sure thing. I see it as friendly and totally acceptable like that.</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" id="10946819">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="269132" Type="35">The Chair</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6285045">Okay.</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6285046">Go ahead, Pam.</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="10946820">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="264317" Type="47">Ms. Pam Damoff</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6285047">Thanks, Chair.</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6285048">The case was certainly horrible, except that he wasn't granted parole, so it would be impossible to do the two. We're looking at one case where we're continuing a study on someone who was granted parole, and it involves the Parole Board, whereas, in fact, this person was denied parole twice, and he was out on statutory release. They're two completely different cases. </ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6285049">I'm very supportive of continuing the work we were doing in the last session on the study we had started, but if we start expanding it.... It's very, very different. Statutory release is something that's prescribed in the law, so we can't study that.</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6285050">I think we should move forward with the study Shannon has put forward, but I wouldn't be supportive of expanding it, for a number of reasons: not because what happened isn't concerning, but because they're very different cases.</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Timestamp Hr="17" Mn="00">(1700)</Timestamp>
          <Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" id="10946825">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="269132" Type="35">The Chair</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6285051"> Kristina.</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <FloorLanguage language="FR">[<I>Translation</I>]</FloorLanguage>
          <Intervention Type="" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="10946826">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="269134" Type="47">Ms. Kristina Michaud</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6285052">I completely understand what Ms. Damoff is saying.</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6285053">My only concern is that witnesses we heard from couldn't reveal certain details because Marylène Levesque's case was still under investigation. It does no harm to broaden the study. Even if the two cases are different, we could seek out other information in an effort to understand things.</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6285054">That's why I proposed we broaden the study to include other cases, even if they aren't all the same. This kind of thing happens all the time. There will never be two cases that are exactly alike. I think broadening the study would be well received.</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <FloorLanguage language="EN">[<I>English</I>]</FloorLanguage>
          <Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" id="10946831">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="269132" Type="35">The Chair</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6285055">Is there any other conversation?</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6285056">Glen.</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="10946832">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="264444" Type="47">Mr. Glen Motz</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6285057">I would agree with [<I>Technical difficulty—Editor</I>].</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="10946833">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="264317" Type="47">Ms. Pam Damoff</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6285058">We can't hear you, Glen.</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="10946841">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="264444" Type="47">Mr. Glen Motz</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6285059">Sorry. Hold on. I'll try this....</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6285060">Can you hear me now?</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6285061">
                <B>The Chair:</B> Yes. That's much better.</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6285062">
                <B>Mr. Glen Motz:</B> Ms. Michaud, I would tend to agree that the issue around the tragic death of Ms. Levesque does speak to a larger Parole Board issue and parole violations. While we want to focus on that one, it might help us frame a larger issue if we can find some other aspects of the whole Parole Board and how they do their work to improve public safety. </ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" id="10946842">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="269132" Type="35">The Chair</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6285063"> Joël.</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <FloorLanguage language="FR">[<I>Translation</I>]</FloorLanguage>
          <Intervention Type="" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="10946843">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="264320" Type="47">Mr. Joël Lightbound</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6285064">Mr. Chair, I think Mr. Harris raised his hand before me. If not, I can go ahead.</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <FloorLanguage language="EN">[<I>English</I>]</FloorLanguage>
          <Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" id="10946844">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="269132" Type="35">The Chair</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6285065">Oh, sorry.</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6285066">Go ahead, Joël. You're on.</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <FloorLanguage language="FR">[<I>Translation</I>]</FloorLanguage>
          <Intervention Type="" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="10946845">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="264320" Type="47">Mr. Joël Lightbound</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6285067">Very well.</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6285068">I agree with Ms. Damoff. While the case Ms. Michaud flagged is troubling, the two cases are completely different. One involves the Parole Board of Canada, and the other involves statutory release, as prescribed by law. We would be undertaking a study of a radically different case. I don't think that was the purpose of the original study the House referred to the committee, which had to do with the Parole Board of Canada and Marylène Levesque's murder.</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6285069">To my mind, they are two completely distinct cases. That doesn't mean one is any more important than the other; they're both equally important. However, we would be taking the study in a whole other direction, at the risk of watering it down. In this case, we are talking about the actions of the Parole Board of Canada and the judgment of the board members and officers.</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <FloorLanguage language="EN">[<I>English</I>]</FloorLanguage>
          <Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" id="10946848">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="269132" Type="35">The Chair</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6285070">Thank you.</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6285071">Jack.</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="10946850">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="264485" Type="47">Mr. Jack Harris</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6285072">I thank you, Kristina, for bringing that forward. I believe it is a very important and disturbing case. It speaks to something that is also a live issue in the other case, but I think the role of the Parole Board was the concern in the Marylène Levesque case. In the case of someone who is released on statutory release, the Parole Board does not have any role in determining that at all. That's something that is a function of their time, their sentence; if you reach a certain date, then you're a statutory release. The Parole Board can't keep you in. </ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6285073">I think the aspect that's common to both...because what was disturbing to me about the Marylène Levesque case was the fact that there was no rehabilitation actually carried out of the individual who was involved, etc. The real question is what happens inside Correctional Service Canada, particularly for sex offenders who may or may not co-operate in any kind of activity of rehabilitation or programs. That's something that I believe is an important study but a separate study that we should undertake. I would recommend that this study be considered as a separate study. However long the Levesque study is going to go, that's something we'll have to determine ourselves, but I don't think it's even the same.... </ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6285074">It's not about the Parole Board, so I'm not sure whether it's in order, Chair. I'm not going to ask for a ruling, but perhaps you want to give us some advice on that. It seems to me the subject of a separate study, and a very important one, probably equally important to the Parole Board role and the Parole Board study. In fact, it's something that we really ought to get our hands on, because one of the failures of our corrections system is how it handles the rehabilitative mandate it has. </ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Timestamp Hr="17" Mn="05">(1705)</Timestamp>
          <Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" id="10946861">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="269132" Type="35">The Chair</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6285075"> The chair is in a bit of a dilemma here, because the mover of the original motion saw the amendment to the motion as a friendly amendment, and therefore incorporated it into the original motion. The arguments have gone now along the line that these are actually separate considerations, possibly related at one level, but mostly separate considerations. </ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6285076">At this point, it's one motion. Unless the movers say otherwise, that's what's on the floor.</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6285077">We have Pam, and then Kristina.</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6285078">You're on mute. You are having a John McKay moment.</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="10946862">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="264317" Type="47">Ms. Pam Damoff</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6285079">I am. I'm having that kind of day.</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6285080">Could we get clarification from the clerk on whether...? Basically, what you're saying is that Shannon is actually moving her own motion and incorporating Kristina's into her motion, so it's only Shannon moving a motion? Is that right?</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" id="10946863">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="269132" Type="35">The Chair</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6285081">There's only one motion on the floor. The mover of the original motion saw Kristina's motion as a friendly amendment and incorporated it, so there is really only one motion on the floor. </ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="10946864">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="264317" Type="47">Ms. Pam Damoff</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6285082">I can't support it the way it's worded now, whereas I would have supported the previous motion the way it was.</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6285083">The Parole Board of Canada, in the case of Cox, denied him parole every time he came until he had to be released. It's a very different case. </ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6285084">I tend to agree with Jack. If there was a study put forward for us to consider on how we rehabilitate people in prison, what kind of programming is done and what kind of enhancements might be made to programming to ensure that when someone does get out of prison, like this individual, they don't reoffend.... Rehabilitation and then being released from prison.... Almost everyone gets out of prison at some point, which is what happened with this individual, whereas Shannon's original motion was about a case where the Parole Board had let him out.</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6285085">They're very different, so I can't support a motion that has incorporated the two of them, whereas I would have supported the motion if it was just on its own. </ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <FloorLanguage language="FR">[<I>Translation</I>]</FloorLanguage>
          <Intervention Type="" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="10946866">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="269134" Type="47">Ms. Kristina Michaud</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6285086">In light of the discussion, I'm wondering whether we can back up a little. Mrs. Stubbs can say that my amendment isn't all that friendly in the end and we can get back to the original motion.</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6285087">As Mr. Harris suggested, I'll propose a separate motion to have the committee undertake a study of this case specifically. That's a good compromise.</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <FloorLanguage language="EN">[<I>English</I>]</FloorLanguage>
          <Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" id="10946865">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="269132" Type="35">The Chair</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6285088">We have Kristina first, and Shannon second.</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" id="10946868">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="269132" Type="35">The Chair</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6285089">Common sense and procedure don't always go together, but we'll see whether Shannon is prepared to say that this motion is unfriendly and therefore needs to be voted on separately. That's what she's saying, right?</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="10946871">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="269133" Type="47">Mrs. Shannon Stubbs</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6285090">Yes, I can just imagine how this would have gone over in 4-H, where we all had to adhere to <I>Robert's Rules of Order</I>, if we all went off the rails. </ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6285091">Given the discussion that's unfolded here.... I did perceive it as friendly, because I was thinking of it as a way of getting at the core issues of potential systemic issues across the board, and also recidivism, in the context of public safety. </ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6285092">However, I am more than happy, if it's amenable to our colleague, to go forward with the original motion that I had made, and then deal with this one separately, according to our discussion. I think they are all important issues.</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Timestamp Hr="17" Mn="10">(1710)</Timestamp>
          <Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" id="10946874">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="269132" Type="35">The Chair</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6285093">I think we understand. What was friendly has now become unfriendly, so what is unfriendly is off the table temporarily while we vote on the original motion. </ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6285094">Am I on solid procedural ground here, Mr. Clerk, or am I leading us into some constitutional crisis?</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="10946876">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="264130" Type="27">The Clerk</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6285095">I believe we're okay. It sounds to me like you have unanimous consent to just revert back to the original motion, and that's fine.</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" id="10946877">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="269132" Type="35">The Chair</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6285096">Let me put the question, unless there's any other discussion.</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6285097"> Those in favour of the original motion—</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="10946878">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="264317" Type="47">Ms. Pam Damoff</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6285098">Sorry, Chair, could you read it, so we all make sure we know what we're voting on?</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" id="10946879">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="269132" Type="35">The Chair</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6285099"> I don't have it.</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="10946881">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="264317" Type="47">Ms. Pam Damoff</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6285100">Does Shannon have it?</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="10946883">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="269133" Type="47">Mrs. Shannon Stubbs</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6285101"> I have it. I think the clerk made, in the course of that discussion, an adjustment that I agreed with.</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" id="10946884">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="269132" Type="35">The Chair</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6285102">Yes, he did, actually.</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="10946885">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="269133" Type="47">Mrs. Shannon Stubbs</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6285103">He might have it.</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="10946886">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="264317" Type="47">Ms. Pam Damoff</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6285104">Maybe the clerk could read it for us before we vote.</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="10946887">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="269133" Type="47">Mrs. Shannon Stubbs</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6285105">Yes.</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="10946888">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="264130" Type="27">The Clerk</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6285106">That's not a problem. It was sent to you at 4:57, but I will read it as well.</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6285107">It says:</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6285108">
                <Quote>
                  <QuotePara Align="Left" IndentFirst="2" IndentRest="2">That, pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the committee undertake a study of the Parole Board and the circumstances that led to a young woman’s death, and that the evidence and documentation received by the committee during the First Session of the 43rd Parliament on the subject be taken into consideration by the committee in the current session.</QuotePara>
                </Quote>
              </ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" id="10946890">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="269132" Type="35">The Chair</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6285109">Okay.</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="10946891">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="264485" Type="47">Mr. Jack Harris</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6285110">I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" id="10946892">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="269132" Type="35">The Chair</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6285111">I just want to make sure everybody got it, both verbally and in writing, before I call the question.</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6285112">I see a point of order. </ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6285113">Go ahead, Mr. Harris.</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="10946894">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="264485" Type="47">Mr. Jack Harris</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6285114">I wonder if there's a problem. I'm just pointing out that on the written version, the heading is “Resume a study and take into consideration evidence”, but the wording of the motion is actually the same as the one that Ms. Damoff had, which was that we “undertake a study”. I wonder whether that makes any difference. </ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6285115">This is a question for the clerk. The words “resume a study” and “undertake a study” have two different meanings, obviously, and we're basically starting from scratch if the other study was on a matter that was referred by the House.</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="10946897">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="264130" Type="27">The Clerk</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6285116">To resume a study is essentially the effect of the motion. The motion speaks of undertaking the study and then adopting all the evidence presented in a previous session, so it has the same effect as if you were resuming a study.</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="10946902">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="264485" Type="47">Mr. Jack Harris</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6285117">Perfect. I'm happy. I just wanted to know that it wasn't an error.</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" id="10946903">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="269132" Type="35">The Chair</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6285118">Our clerk never makes errors.</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6285119">I'm not sure he's right on that one, though. I would have phrased it as “undertake a study”, because we are not actually resuming the original study, but let's just keep it moving here.</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6285120">Do we need a recorded vote?</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="10946905">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="264130" Type="27">The Clerk</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6285121">Yes, sir.</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" id="10946908">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="269132" Type="35">The Chair</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6285122">Okay.</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6285123">(Motion agreed to: yeas 11; nays 0)</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6285124">
                <B>The Chair:</B> Pam.</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Timestamp Hr="17" Mn="15">(1715)</Timestamp>
          <Intervention Type="" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="10946916">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="264317" Type="47">Ms. Pam Damoff</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6285125">Chair, I'd like to move a motion that any additional ideas for studies be submitted to the clerk in the form of a motion by Friday, October 16, for distribution to the committee. I'm amenable to changing the date on that, but it gives the committee a week to put them together, including, perhaps, Kristina's idea about ways to promote rehabilitation and reduce recidivism in correctional...and I know other people have spoken about having ideas. </ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6285126">I'd like to move that any motions for additional studies be submitted to the clerk by Friday, October 16.</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" id="10946917">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="269132" Type="35">The Chair</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6285127">Is there any discussion?</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6285128">Damien.</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="10946919">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="264445" Type="47">Mr. Damien Kurek</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6285129">I'm curious as to the reason why something like that would be necessary. Certainly as guidance, as soon as we have an understanding of when this committee can meet.... I know the clerk mentioned that there are challenges in the scheduling aspect and whatnot.</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6285130">Certainly, a committee is in charge of its own destiny, so I'm not sure that a motion like that is necessary, when it's certainly in good conduct and appropriate to distribute motions ahead of time. If I were to move something, I would endeavour to do so, but a motion that limits the ability of the committee to do its work, I don't know that I could support that. I'd be curious to hear from others, but limiting the committee's ability to do its job is something that I find troubling.</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" id="10946924">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="269132" Type="35">The Chair</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6285131"> Gagan.</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="10946927">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="264322" Type="47">Mr. Gagan Sikand</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6285132">I don't think the intention there is to limit the ability of the committee to do its work. It's actually to do it more thoroughly. We're all presenting things off the floor, and to your point, it's not actually getting the attention it deserves. I think it's Pam's intention to have everything presented so that everyone could thoroughly go through it and then we can proceed from there, if I'm not mistaken. </ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" id="10946929">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="269132" Type="35">The Chair</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6285133">Next is Kristina, then Damien, then Jack and Pam.</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <FloorLanguage language="FR">[<I>Translation</I>]</FloorLanguage>
          <Intervention Type="" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="10946930">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="269134" Type="47">Ms. Kristina Michaud</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6285134">Thank you.</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6285135">I'm inclined to support Ms. Damoff's motion. I, myself, have other motions to put forward, one of which I could move today. There's not a whole lot of time left before the meeting ends to debate it properly, however. Perhaps I have time to move my next motion, which we talked about.</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6285136">I know other members have motions, including Mr. Harris, who didn't expect to do it today either. It may be a good idea to arrange another meeting, quickly if possible, as the clerk mentioned.</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <FloorLanguage language="EN">[<I>English</I>]</FloorLanguage>
          <Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" id="10946932">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="269132" Type="35">The Chair</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6285137">Jack.</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="10946934">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="264485" Type="47">Mr. Jack Harris</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6285138">I just wanted to say that I didn't see it as restrictive. I saw it as giving an opportunity for all the ideas to be on the table at once. We're only deciding.... We will look at priorities. I may have ideas but, when I hear Kristina's, I may say that I really want to do that one ahead of mine. It gives us an opportunity to see what else is on the table. </ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6285139">The committee is always master of its destiny and can make a decision to prioritize something when something comes up on a given occasion that people think needs to be dealt with quickly. That's always left to the committee. I think it's a good idea to give people a chance to put all the ideas forward, and the rest of the committee can then decide. </ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" id="10946938">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="269132" Type="35">The Chair</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6285140">We have Damien, then Pam.</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="10946939">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="264445" Type="47">Mr. Damien Kurek</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6285141">I certainly don't disagree with the intent. However, I'm always hesitant when we create procedural boundaries to allowing a committee to be able to do its work. </ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6285142">Certainly the spirit of the motion is perfectly in line with what I think is appropriate and perfectly in line with what I would suggest is good conduct. Acknowledging what the clerk mentioned in his statements regarding the organization and the changing dynamics that we all face—whether it be COVID or the hybrid context in which we meet—I would agree with the intent. I'm just not sure that a motion to do that.... Excuse my lack of experience, but it would be my understanding that to make changes, if something did come up, for example, on the 17th, it would require unanimous consent of the committee to be able to move forward.</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6285143">
                <B>A voice:</B> No.</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6285144">
                <B>Mr. Damien Kurek:</B> No? I would appreciate clarification, then, on what that would look like, because my reading of the Standing Orders would suggest that a motion like that could restrict the committee's ability to do its work. </ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6285145">Again, I agree with the intent. I'm just not sure that a motion is necessarily required, when we're all in agreement with what is good conduct for ensuring that we can do exactly what all of my colleagues have mentioned.</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Timestamp Hr="17" Mn="20">(1720)</Timestamp>
          <Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" id="10946946">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="269132" Type="35">The Chair</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6285146">Pam is next, and then Shannon.</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="10946948">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="264317" Type="47">Ms. Pam Damoff</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6285147">Thanks, Chair.</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6285148">I appreciate my colleague's concerns. This is something that has been quite common, certainly in the last five years, on the committees that I have sat on. I can't speak to other ones. </ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6285149">Nothing precludes a member from bringing a motion to committee at any time. That has happened, and then it's up to the committee whether it wants to vote on it or not. There's absolutely nothing that precludes him from bringing a motion at any time. </ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6285150">What this does do, though, is allow.... We have two studies that we've already approved, which are going to take some time. We have a work plan to finish our study on systemic racism and to finish our study on the Parole Board of Canada. Those are two studies we've already approved. This would give us an opportunity to take a look at what other members are interested in doing and develop a bit of a work plan. It is subject to change at any time, but it would give us all an opportunity to review them. </ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6285151">As Jack was saying, it may very well be that you, Damien, put in a motion and then when we look at it we think that's a really good idea and maybe we could add to it and change it a little bit and we move forward. It's not uncommon. It doesn't go against any rules of procedure. It doesn't preclude him from bringing forward a motion at any time with 48 hours of notice, I believe, Chair, for the committee to vote on.</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" id="10946957">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="269132" Type="35">The Chair</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6285152"> We have Shannon, and then Gagan.</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="10946958">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="269133" Type="47">Mrs. Shannon Stubbs</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6285153">Thanks, Chair. </ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6285154">Pam, I think you're probably getting to the crux of the concern here. Chair, I don't know if you want to weigh in or if the clerk can weigh in so that we can just all be assured of this. </ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6285155">I think what members are looking for is confidence that this motion wouldn't be prohibitive to future motions or requests for work, and wouldn't be used for, say.... I can imagine in a future situation somebody making the argument, “Well, no, we can't go forward on that because we moved this motion at the beginning that says that only these studies were agreed to.”</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6285156">I think we're all on the same page here in terms of the approach and the importance of doing this so that we can actually move swiftly to do our work. There could be a slight language alteration that would clarify that—maybe just the way your motion is already written, but inserting something like “but not limited to October 16”.</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6285157">I think we are just looking to be assured that if there was a reason later on to pursue other areas of study or, in the context of an argument, if an emergency or something were to happen that we thought should supersede.... I think we are all just looking to be assured that this motion isn't restrictive in that way.</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" id="10946966">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="269132" Type="35">The Chair</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6285158">I would interpret the motion as simply an organizing motion, if you will: “Let's get all the ideas on the table so that when we have a conversation, everyone gets a fair shot at making their argument as to why this should proceed or that should proceed.” That's how I interpret it.</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6285159">Next is Gagan, and then Joël.</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Timestamp Hr="17" Mn="25">(1725)</Timestamp>
          <Intervention Type="" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="10946968">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="264322" Type="47">Mr. Gagan Sikand</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6285160">Perhaps Joël should go first, because I was going to say, given the time constraints, Chair, that we should end it.</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" id="10946969">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="269132" Type="35">The Chair</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6285161">We have five minutes, yes.</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="10946970">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="264322" Type="47">Mr. Gagan Sikand</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6285162">Joël, would you like to go ahead?</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="10946971">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="264320" Type="47">Mr. Joël Lightbound</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6285163">I don't know how Pam feels about it, but given that we have a consensus to send in writing the motions that we'd like to see proceed, do we really need a motion at this point, or do we have consensus among ourselves that by October 16 we want to send all the motions, and then proceed swiftly with the vote?</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" id="10946972">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="269132" Type="35">The Chair</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6285164">Gagan. </ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="10946973">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="264322" Type="47">Mr. Gagan Sikand</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6285165">I don't know if Pam wants to speak to that, but I was going to put a motion forward that we end debate and just vote on the motion that Pam put forward.</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" id="10946974">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="269132" Type="35">The Chair</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6285166">Damien.</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6285167">I probably have just overruled you, Gagan, but that's all right. You'll get over it.</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6285168">Go ahead, Damien.</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="10946977">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="264445" Type="47">Mr. Damien Kurek</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6285169">Since that motion was overruled, I would just ask if I could hear Pam's motion again. I don't have the text of it, because of the short notice of this meeting and whatnot. If committee members could hear the specifics of that, certainly that would help.</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" id="10946978">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="269132" Type="35">The Chair</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6285170">Pam, do you want to do that again? </ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="10946979">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="264317" Type="47">Ms. Pam Damoff</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6285171">Sure. Maybe the clerk could help with wording that's subject to the Standing Orders. I know that at the status of women committee last year, the Conservatives brought forward a motion, even though we had a work plan based on studies, and we voted on it right away.</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6285172">My suggestion was that perhaps, Chair, we just do it by unanimous consent that all parties submit their ideas for potential studies to the clerk of the committee no later than Friday, October 16, 2020. If the clerk has better wording that would not supersede anything in the Standing Orders, that's fine.</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" id="10946983">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="269132" Type="35">The Chair</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6285173">Let me just clarify with the clerk before we ask for a vote.</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="10946984">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="264130" Type="27">The Clerk</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6285174">I believe the wording is fine.</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" id="10946985">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="269132" Type="35">The Chair</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6285175">There's nothing to stop anybody from bringing a 48-hour motion.</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="10946986">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="264130" Type="27">The Clerk</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6285176">Absolutely not, because there's already a routine motion adopted by the committee giving the right to do so.</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" id="10946987">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="269132" Type="35">The Chair</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6285177">Yes, exactly, including firing the chair, which is probably a good idea....</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6285178">All right. Is there any other discussion?</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6285179">(Motion agreed to)</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6285180">
                <B>The Chair:</B> Okay, thank you, folks. We do have three minutes left.</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6285181">You're going to feed the clerk what you're interested in discussing. Our next meeting of the full committee would be whenever we can arrange it, which, given the present circumstances, is a bit of a challenge. I would also much prefer—this is a personal prejudice—for the witness lists, the timelines and all the rest of the stuff to be done in the subcommittee, because discussions among 12 people tend to be very time-consuming.</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6285182">Nevertheless, having said all that, I thank you all.</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6285183"> Mr. Motz, you have one minute left. </ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="10946990">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="264444" Type="47">Mr. Glen Motz</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6285184"> I just wanted to speak to your point of when the next meeting will be. Someone said earlier in this particular meeting that the date of our meeting specifically will be determined in the coming days, so that might play a role in when our next meetings will be, not inclusive of the subcommittee, which you guys will have on your own.</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
          <Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" id="10946991">
            <PersonSpeaking>
              <Affiliation DbId="269132" Type="35">The Chair</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking>
            <Content>
              <ParaText id="6285185">My interpretation would be, a full committee meeting first, and a subcommittee meeting following that, so we can put some flesh on the bones and get down to our studies. </ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6285186">I see that our time has expired. It has been a very useful and helpful discussion. The clerk has a lot of useful information from which we can proceed and hopefully be a little more organized.</ParaText>
              <ParaText id="6285187">With that, I am virtually gavelling this meeting to an end.</ParaText>
            </Content>
          </Intervention>
        </SubjectOfBusinessContent>
      </SubjectOfBusiness>
    </OrderOfBusiness>
  </HansardBody>
</Hansard>