Evidence of meeting #38 for Government Operations and Estimates in the 40th Parliament, 3rd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was varin.
A recording is available from Parliament.
10:45 a.m.
Conservative
Chris Warkentin Conservative Peace River, AB
I have a couple of things.
I think it's now apparent to all of us, having understood that this information is not available immediately, that the date of November 24 is probably an unreasonable date. It's clear from what we've heard from the OPP that in fact this information hasn't yet been compiled and therefore would be impossible to provide in that timeframe. So I think we need to change either the date or our expectation of what is going to be brought forward by them.
The other thing that we absolutely must include in this, if we're going to have a full airing of this issue, is that the representative from the Ontario provincial cabinet, Rick Bartolucci, the minister who actually signed this contract--of course, the OPP officials, the police force, never signed the contract--should give some light as to why the dates were as stated in the contract. I think it would be imperative that we have a representative from the provincial government--Rick Bartolucci is the minister who signed the contract—to get some clarity as to whether or not these dates were prescribed by him or appropriate for them. I think it's important that we call on them.
10:45 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John McKay
I'm working on the assumption that the calling of Mr. Rick Bartolucci is not received as a friendly amendment, or is it?
10:45 a.m.
Liberal
Denis Coderre Liberal Bourassa, QC
Can we settle that part first? Do we agree, as a friendly amendment, that we're deleting the rest after November 24?
10:45 a.m.
Liberal
10:45 a.m.
Liberal
Geoff Regan Liberal Halifax West, NS
Mr. Chairman, we can certainly discuss future witnesses whenever, at steering committee or committee later, but let's deal with this—
10:45 a.m.
Liberal
Geoff Regan Liberal Halifax West, NS
Mr. Chairman, what I want to say is that the OPP has indicated it would have this information by December 1. Now, we've had two previous motions of this committee—one in September, once since then—asking for this information. All the other departments have provided it to us. We got it from the RCMP, we got it from the Toronto police, from CSIS, etc., and it's hard for me to believe that they're going to have it on December 1 but they can't have it on November 24, seven days earlier. It's particularly hard to believe that there's no information they can make available to us.
10:45 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John McKay
You have seen the letter from the OPP. They do say it will be available December 1. They don't say it can be available before that date. It may be an issue of credibility in your mind, it may be an issue of credibility in other people's minds, but that is the response from the OPP to date.
Simply for clarification for the chair, what is it that this motion adds to or takes away from the previous motion, other than the date?
10:45 a.m.
Liberal
Geoff Regan Liberal Halifax West, NS
This requires the OPP to provide us the information, Mr. Chairman.
10:45 a.m.
Conservative
Chris Warkentin Conservative Peace River, AB
That is my question, too, Mr. Chair. As a matter of fact, this motion is basically redundant. A motion that basically prescribes this was previously passed by this committee. Obviously, we didn't support it because we knew it wasn't reasonable.
The Ontario Provincial Police have acknowledged that they will be forthcoming with that information, but since that information is not available to them right now, it would be impossible for them to pass it on to us.
That having been said, it's absolutely redundant. It seems to be simply an issue of playing politics with the police force, which I believe is independent. I believe it to be honourable. I believe it to be above reproach, and any suggestion that they're withholding this information for any other reason, other than that it's not available, is preposterous. So if the members opposite believe they're withholding it for any other reason--that would be the only reason I would believe they're bringing forward this motion--if they have any other suggestion.... I have to vote against this, unless they have any other rationale as to what this motion does, other than reiterate what they have already brought forward that has been responded to.
10:50 a.m.
Liberal
Geoff Regan Liberal Halifax West, NS
There is a distinction between this motion and the last one. In the last motion we “requested” the information, and now we're ordering that it be provided. We have the ability to do that, as this is the highest court in the land--Parliament.
The second thing, of course, is that we don't know what will happen on December 1 even. You know the government receives the information on December 1. We don't know if they'll sit on it for months. So I think it's important that we get hold of this information.
10:50 a.m.
Conservative
Paul Calandra Conservative Oak Ridges—Markham, ON
I want to state for the record that of course I'll be voting against this. As the only member from Ontario here, with the exception of yourself, I find it almost preposterous that we're suggesting that the Ontario Provincial Police are a corrupt organization that is somehow trying to mislead Parliament.
I always stand up for the good people of the Ontario Provincial Police, who gave some extraordinary testimony here, who did really good work during the G-8 and G-20, and now to suggest that they're deliberately holding back information for some nefarious purposes.... I suppose it's easy for members from other parts of the country to sling that type of mud, but those of us in Ontario are quite proud of our provincial police force and quite confident in their ability to get the information that is asked of them, that was signed by their Liberal provincial minister many months in advance of the G-8 and the G-20.
10:50 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John McKay
We're all proud of the OPP.
Are there any other interventions? The first issue is to deal with the amendment, a friendly amendment. Can we immediately go to the main motion?
10:50 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John McKay
A recorded vote on the main motion as was read to you. Is everybody familiar with the main motion at this point? Okay.
Monsieur greffier, would you call out the names, please?
(Motion agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The final bit--we're really running up against time.
Mr. Martin, I know you are quite anxious to revive your motion, which I think was put before the committee but I don't believe we dealt with it. Is that correct?
10:50 a.m.
NDP
10:50 a.m.
NDP
Pat Martin NDP Winnipeg Centre, MB
And you were directed to report to Parliament. We recommend, with all due respect, that the government put a moratorium on all construction contracts associated with Parliament Hill.
I notice you've written a second report of this committee and you still fail to even mention a motion that was properly dealt with before this committee.
10:50 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John McKay
The clerk informs me, and I apologize, Mr. Martin, that there was no specific direction for the chair to report that motion to the House. I stand to be corrected, but if you wish to revive that, may I suggest that you bring it before the committee possibly as early as Thursday?
10:50 a.m.
NDP
Pat Martin NDP Winnipeg Centre, MB
No, I don't intend to move it.
How else can the committee recommend to government that they put a moratorium if it's not reported by the chair to Parliament? I'm not going to put another notice of motion to move a motion that I already properly served notice for, had it voted on, and passed. It seems you're reluctant to implement the will of the committee.