Evidence of meeting #1 for Declaration of Emergency in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was chair.
A video is available from Parliament.
11:15 a.m.
Stephanie Feldman Committee Researcher
Hello, everyone. My name is Stephanie Feldman and I'm one of the two analysts assigned to this committee. I'm really looking forward to assisting the committee with its work.
11:15 a.m.
Brendan Naef Committee Researcher
Good morning, everyone. My name is Brendan Naef.
I recognize some of you from previous Senate or House of Commons committees, and there are a lot of new faces as well. I look forward to working with my colleague Stephanie and with all of you as well.
11:15 a.m.
The Joint Chair Hon. Gwen Boniface
On behalf of the committee, we welcome you aboard.
Motion two is on the subcommittee on agenda and procedure. Do I have a mover for motion two?
It is moved by Mr. Motz that the subcommittee on agenda and procedure be composed of the chairs, the vice-chairs from the House of Commons, and all four Senate members of the committee, and that the subcommittee work in a spirit of collaboration.
Is it agreed to adopt the motion?
Mr. Fortin, go ahead.
11:15 a.m.
Bloc
The Joint Co-Chair Bloc Rhéal Fortin
I'm sorry. I'm a bad co‑chair. I'm not sure how to take the floor in a committee that I'm co‑chairing.
I believe that this is a good time to discuss the motion regarding the subcommittee on agenda and procedure.
Normally, House of Commons subcommittees don't make decisions. They report to the full committee, which either approves or rejects their motions. However, the motion introduced would give our subcommittee decision‑making authority. In addition, eight committee members would sit on the subcommittee, and there are 11 committee members in total. Upon reflection, a discussion involving 11 people isn't really any more challenging than a discussion involving eight people. Moreover, it would be more democratic and comfortable if all 11 committee participants made every decision together.
I'm wondering whether it's appropriate to create a subcommittee under the current circumstances, given the number of workers on that subcommittee and its decision‑making authority.
I'm raising the issue and turning the floor over to you.
11:20 a.m.
Liberal
Rachel Bendayan Liberal Outremont, QC
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I'm inclined to agree with Mr. Fortin's proposal. That said, we must still ensure that our discussions are efficient and that they lead to progress. As my colleague said, there isn't much difference between a discussion involving 11 people and a discussion involving eight people. I think that his proposal makes sense.
11:20 a.m.
Senator, Ontario, PSG
Very quickly, I have no objection. I think there's some logic to this.
11:20 a.m.
Liberal
11:20 a.m.
Liberal
Arif Virani Liberal Parkdale—High Park, ON
Thank you.
First of all, welcome to everyone.
Congratulations to you, Madam Chair, and to all the co-chairs, vice-chairs and deputy chairs. There is a lot of terminology being thrown about. Congratulations to the analysts.
I look forward to working with everyone on this committee. It's going to be very important and precedent-setting work.
I think when you analyze the terms of the proposed motion, it would actually end up including only one member of the Liberal Party, and I think that renders an unfairness on its face, so I would be very supportive of what Monsieur Fortin is suggesting, that if there is a subcommittee struck with only one Liberal member—because there is only one Liberal among the chairs, the co-chairs and the vice-chairs—it only make recommendations and not make formal decisions, and the final decisions be referred to the entire committee only.
Thank you.
11:20 a.m.
Conservative
Glen Motz Conservative Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB
Thank you, Madam Chair.
It would strike me, then, if we are looking at this from a subcommittee perspective, that we could either eliminate motions two and three completely, or add that, as in number three, they would have the ability to make some decisions on witnesses, but they would bring those back to the committee for approval.
That is a friendly amendment I was going to propose once we got to number three, that the subcommittee's work come back to this main committee for approval. It's not as efficient, but it could work. It's one or the other. I suppose we could eliminate it completely or we could change the wording to allow decisions to come back to this table for approval.
11:20 a.m.
Liberal
Rachel Bendayan Liberal Outremont, QC
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I have a few other questions about the discussions that would take place in the committee, rather than in a subcommittee.
Could we agree to have these discussions in camera, rather than on television, since a subcommittee's work is never televised?
I would like to confirm whether we'll be using this approach.
11:20 a.m.
The Joint Chair Hon. Gwen Boniface
I am advised by the clerk that one way we may wish to deal with this motion—and I am seeing consensus around the table that we do it as a full committee, as Mr. Fortin has proposed, and try to work with as much efficiency as possible—would be just to defeat motion number two and not propose motion number three.
Would that be agreeable to everyone? I think that meets your purpose, and I think I am hearing around the table that we want efficiency, but at the same time the difference between eight and 11 members is not significant.
Have I read that correctly?
11:20 a.m.
Voices
Agreed.
11:20 a.m.
The Joint Chair Hon. Gwen Boniface
I would then ask, on motion number two, if I have heard you correctly, whether it is agreed to adopt the motion.
11:25 a.m.
Liberal
Rachel Bendayan Liberal Outremont, QC
Madam Chair, would we agree that the discussions would be in camera?
11:25 a.m.
Bloc
The Joint Co-Chair Bloc Rhéal Fortin
You may or may not agree with me. In my view, our discussions should be in public where possible, and in camera where the Emergencies Act requires it.
At this point, I don't see how we could determine what will be discussed in camera. I wouldn't want us to pass a motion to work in camera without a good reason. We've all seen that, according to the act, orders in council and regulations that aren't subject to publication in the Canada Gazette must be discussed in camera. This makes sense and is understandable. No one here wants to compromise government security. Should we pass a motion here about working in camera? With all due respect, Ms. Bendayan, I don't think so.
I just don't think that we need a subcommittee. However, again, I'll leave this up to the discretion of all committee members.
11:25 a.m.
Conservative
Glen Motz Conservative Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB
Can I just withdraw my motion? That would be easier, and then we wouldn't even deal with it.
11:25 a.m.
The Joint Chair Hon. Gwen Boniface
We could do that.
Is that the proposal you have on the table?