Evidence of meeting #88 for Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was chair.
A recording is available from Parliament.
4:05 p.m.
Liberal
Iqra Khalid Liberal Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON
Having understood what Mr. Green has said, I would like to propose a little bit of a variation, if that's okay, Chair. Or I can allow—
4:05 p.m.
Conservative
4:05 p.m.
Liberal
Iqra Khalid Liberal Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON
That's exactly what I'm asking for. I'm asking for unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.
4:05 p.m.
Some hon. members
Agreed.
4:05 p.m.
Conservative
4:05 p.m.
Liberal
Iqra Khalid Liberal Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON
Thanks, Chair.
In that case, first I would put forward an amendment to delete altogether the words “that the committee devote three meetings to this study”, so that after we've had the first meeting, the committee can decide, perhaps, if that's what they would like to do or not.
Second, I would delete point (a), which is inviting the former conflict of interest and ethics commissioner, Mr. Mario Dion. I would also delete point (b).
In point (e), as per Mr. Green's suggestion, I would replace that point with inviting the former Privy Council clerk, Mr. Wernick.
4:05 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Brassard
Just so I'm clear, are you asking for those three meetings? I understand the other amendments, but are—
4:05 p.m.
Liberal
Iqra Khalid Liberal Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON
What I'm asking for, Chair, is for us to delete that whole phrase, “that the committee devote three meetings to this study”, from the motion.
I'm asking to have the first meeting, and then decide as to how we're going to proceed as a committee. I'm asking not to put a time limit on it. I know that's perhaps quite dangerous, but I'm going on good faith here, because I know that there's really not much to be seen.
4:05 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Brassard
The way I'm reading this, it would mean that we'd still have one meeting on this. That's the way I'm reading it.
You have to help me out here, to quantify how many meetings you want to have.
4:05 p.m.
Liberal
Iqra Khalid Liberal Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON
Can we do that amendment last, then?
Maybe take that out. Once we've settled with everything else, perhaps we can come back to how much time we need to spend on this.
4:05 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Brassard
Ms. Khalid, we need some clarification, because the clerk and I are confused.
We understand the removal of (a), (b) and (e), but we don't understand where you're going with the meetings. I need some clarification on that.
4:05 p.m.
Liberal
Iqra Khalid Liberal Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON
Chair, in that case, if there is any doubt, then I think we should still have just the one meeting on this.
4:05 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Brassard
You want one meeting. Okay, that clarifies things.
We're going to deal with this in its entirety right now, because we couldn't do it one by one. We're going to deal with it in its entirety.
The amendment from Ms. Khalid is to have only one meeting. In that meeting, we're going to have the RCMP commissioner; we're going to have the staff sergeant, who would accompany Mr. Duheme; and the former Privy Council clerk, Michael Wernick.
That's Ms. Khalid's amendment.
Mr. Green, you were first. Go ahead, please.
4:05 p.m.
Conservative
4:05 p.m.
Liberal
Pam Damoff Liberal Oakville North—Burlington, ON
Thanks, Chair.
I'm wondering, Chair, if you would consider voting separately on the amendments she has proposed on witnesses, or voting on that part first and then the number of meetings, because I really think the number of meetings is going to be determined by how many people are coming. I don't think any of us want to have five people for two hours. If we could separate that and leave the vote on the number of meetings to the end, it would give a lot of clarity to how many meetings are needed.
If Ms. Khalid's motion is defeated and everything stays on here, it's going to require more meetings. Then maybe we could debate the number of meetings, Chair, if you'd consider that.
4:10 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Brassard
I appreciate that, Ms. Damoff.
The amendment was on the one meeting, with (a), (b) and (e), including Michael Wernick in there.
If that makes things easier, then I'll deal with it. We can deal with that now.
Mr. Green, go ahead.
4:10 p.m.
NDP
Matthew Green NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
I'm going to go ahead and say it. If we're doing these amendments in good faith, then we wouldn't limit it to a day. If you want to go vote by vote, and then when it comes to your piece where you want to limit it to a day, you vote against the rest of the committee, then what's the point of our moving away from Mr. Villemure's original motion?
I don't want to be in a scenario where we support all these amendments and then have the Liberal side just turn around and vote against how many days we're having. It's these little procedural things that annoy me. If you're going to move amendments to change the list of witnesses, knowing that those witnesses are going to take three days, then I don't think it's in good faith to say that you want to limit it to a day.
I'm going to put to you, Mr. Chair, that the amendment stay as it is. Then we can go vote by vote, but you should start with the first day, and we'll see where they go, and then we'll go vote by vote after that. But they can't have it all ways.
4:10 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Brassard
There's a part of me that agrees with Mr. Green on this. We have one day for what will amount to three witnesses. I think it's reasonable to expect that we could probably get two days out of this rather than one. I'm looking to this side for guidance on this, because two days is reasonable.
Go ahead, Ms. Khalid.
4:10 p.m.
Liberal
Iqra Khalid Liberal Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON
That's exactly what I was trying to say when I said to delete “that the committee devote three meetings to this study”, because ultimately we want to determine how many meetings we are going to have based on how many witnesses we are going to have, based on the votes as to whether these amendments go forward.
I look to you for guidance, Chair. I'm wondering if we can perhaps withdraw the amendment changing it from three to one. Perhaps we need to suspend for a bit so we can talk amongst ourselves and seek a little clarity with each other as to what the text of the motion should be.
4:10 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Brassard
I don't think we need to specify specifically how many meetings are going to occur. There could be a situation that comes up where, for example, Mr. Wernick is not available, so we're going to have to have a couple of meetings. If we can find a way to leave that open—
4:10 p.m.
Liberal
Iqra Khalid Liberal Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON
Chair, I would appreciate a suspension for a minute, though, if that's okay.
