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.
Conservative
Glen Motz Conservative Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB
Yes, Madam Chair. I would like to raise a point of order based on my generosity to Mr. Virani.
My routine motion was actually ready to roll in both official languages, and we've had to endure a long recess from this committee in order for Mr. Virani to go forward. I hope he recognizes my generosity in this and will endeavour to extend me some grace at a point down the road, which I'm sure I will need.
Liberal
Arif Virani Liberal Parkdale—High Park, ON
Any man with a purple tie gets my vote of confidence, so yes, Glen, absolutely understood. Thank you for your generosity.
I will try to be very brief, Madam Chair. Hopefully, the document has been distributed to all members at this point. The routine motion, just paragraphs 1 and 2, which is what I will speak to, calls for some basic additions.
The first paragraph says, “That each two-hour meeting in which witnesses are called be limited to one witness panel of up to four to five witnesses, so as to allow the opportunity for a fulsome or comprehensive question period.”
This is to avoid the situation in which we have such a distribution of the questioning, etc., among the various senators and members.... It's so that we have time to probe the issues and give them the consideration they deserve with each set of witnesses. Trying to jam in multiple sets of witnesses within a two-hour window is probably unlikely to be efficient.
The second paragraph, Madam Chair, says this: “That the clerk and analysts be instructed to compose balanced witness panels whenever possible, such that each witness appearing on a panel must have been requested by a different party or senator, save and except for situations where all members agree that a particular witness or witnesses should appear.”
Speaking to the latter part of paragraph 2, there's going to be, I think, very little contention that ministers and entities like the RCMP and law endorsement should be coming. That's one where I presume we will find a strong consensus; in other situations, it will be less so. Again, this is meant to be a direction but not a firm obligation on the part of the clerks and analysts. The words “whenever possible” are injected there to try to provide some balance to the types of panels we are hearing, so that we're not getting all of one side of a particular story or particular vantage point in any given meeting.
Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I will end it there.
Conservative
Larry Brock Conservative Brantford—Brant, ON
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I think my colleague Mr. Virani sent each member a copy of this document to our P9 accounts. For some reason, it did not go to my account, so I have not had a chance to read this.
I'm wondering if Mr. Virani or a member of his staff can ensure I receive this.
Liberal
Arif Virani Liberal Parkdale—High Park, ON
I believe it was sent by Ms. Bendayan's staff to the clerk, Mr. Brock, and the clerk is the one who distributed it to you.
The Joint Chair Hon. Gwen Boniface
That will be sent to you, Mr. Brock. I had to refresh my phone to get it. I wonder if that's part of the problem.
Mr. Motz, do you have questions?
Conservative
Glen Motz Conservative Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB
Yes. I have questions in regard to the routine motion.
The first is regarding the motion that each two-hour meeting in which witnesses are called be limited to one witness panel of up to four to five witnesses, so as to allow the opportunity for a fulsome...question period.
I agree that we need to allow for a fulsome question period, but I'm wondering whether we should consider limiting the number of witnesses for each panel to two and, in the right circumstance, maybe three. To me, it would enable all of us on this committee to have a fulsome round of questions on that. I don't think there's any time limit on our committee. I think there's already been some understanding that we want a fulsome, transparent process here in order to do that.
We've all been in committees on which we have so many witnesses appearing that we can't get through them; we can't get through their testimony well; we can't get through asking the questions we want, and not everybody on the committee can ask a question.
I like the idea, but let's limit that to two—possibly three—witnesses per two-hour panel, please.
NDP
The Joint Chair NDP Matthew Green
Thank you.
I want to reflect on our earlier amendments to the routine motions that basically set the agenda-making process open to the entire committee.
I have had the privilege of reaching out to every member of this committee. I've had discussions with the other co-chairs about really being intentional about setting our work plan early and having an emphasis, perhaps, in the next two or three meetings, on the specificity of the work plan.
Having reviewed the motions that have been set out today, and recognizing where we are with time in this meeting, I wonder if we can come to a consensus that we will concentrate the next two meetings for sure on setting out a work plan in which we can get into witnesses and agenda items. The fact that we've already contemplated the agenda items as being open to the committee as a whole suggests that we could address the first two routine motions put forward by Mr. Virani. I would go even further, to suggest that while the other new motions that have been presented are in order and this is the appropriate time to deal with them, it might be better for us to take advantage of having constituted this committee and gone through the administrative processes that were already agreed upon in advance, rather than trying to embark on this whole new subset of administrative questions, which may be better suited for a next meeting that deals strictly with the work plan.
I don't know what the intention is in terms of how long people want to debate this long list of new and additional motions. It has generally been my experience that prior to considering routine motions, the different parties have had discussions and have come to some kind of consensus so that members can move through them routinely. I would put, through you, Madam Chair, to the movers of these motions, both Mr. Virani and Mr. Motz, that it might make sense, for the sake of making it through this first meeting, to commit to addressing these in a deeper way at the very next sitting of this committee, so that we don't feel rushed for time and we don't feel squeezed by the need for interpretation.
Bloc
The Joint Chair Bloc Rhéal Fortin
Thank you, Madam Chair.
First, I tend to agree that it might be a bit soon to come up with a witness list.
Second, Mr. Virani's two motions bother me. The point of routine motions is to set some general rules that apply to the committee for the duration of its work as well as to witnesses. In some instances, we can probably all agree that two minutes is enough, but in others, we may want a whole day. I wouldn't be at all comfortable to say today how many witnesses we are going to hear from without knowing which witnesses we are talking about.
I suggest we stick to general rules here. That's not to say that Mr. Virani's idea is a bad one, but I think we can figure out those details when it comes time to discuss potential witnesses. Then, on the basis of the witnesses we want to hear from, we can decide whether it's appropriate to limit the number of witnesses on a particular afternoon to two or three, for instance, and how much time we want to give them.
Something else to consider when it comes to having panels made up of specific witnesses is that we may want to hear from witnesses on a particular topic, regardless of who requested them.
I think it might be too early to decide these things. As I said, it bothers me a bit to put, in the general rules, details that the committee will probably want to adjust depending on the witnesses who are appearing.
The Joint Chair Hon. Gwen Boniface
I have Mr. Virani on the list, then Mr. Green and Mr. Motz.
Mr. Virani, go ahead.
Liberal
Arif Virani Liberal Parkdale—High Park, ON
Madam Chair, I believe that was my hand from earlier. I apologize. I'll drop it.
I would appreciate the ability to respond in total once everyone has made their submissions.
NDP
The Joint Chair NDP Matthew Green
Again, contemplating the time and knowing that part of our legislative requirements will be to agree, hopefully, on an interim report that will go back to the House, I would remind members that at some time during this meeting, we would probably like to consider what that might look like. It's just, as we get into this debate, to make sure we set aside time at the end for that interim meeting to report back to the House that we have constituted this committee and are meeting our legislative requirements.
The Joint Chair Hon. Gwen Boniface
Before I move to Mr. Motz, I want to be clear that there has been a request to extend, but obviously we can't extend for very long.
Mr. Motz, I'll go to you.
Conservative
Glen Motz Conservative Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB
Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
I agree with Mr. Fortin that the idea of witness lists now might be a bit premature. We should maybe consider finishing routine.... I guess number one has kind of a routine focus. I feel that the motion I presented is a routine matter that could be dealt with quickly today.
Mr. Green, you indicated that maybe one and two are not routine and should be moved to next time? Is that what you're saying?
NDP
The Joint Chair NDP Matthew Green
I was just suggesting that given our constraints we should set aside the next two meetings to do this type of work. I don't believe any of the parties has been consulted to get to some kind of consensus, so it would save us time for more substantive debate if we held it off until the next meeting and the meeting after that.
It's at the will of the committee, of course, if the committee would like to delve into that. I just want to make sure we hold time aside within the remaining minutes—I'm not sure how long we're going to extend for—to hopefully come to a consensus around what has been agreed upon in this initial constituting meeting, and send that back to the House as part of our first interim report. Before we go down a rabbit hole of debating these motions, I just want to make sure we hold fast to that time.
The Joint Chair Hon. Gwen Boniface
I think we're back to Mr. Virani. I'm not seeing anyone else around the table.
Go ahead, sir.
Liberal
Arif Virani Liberal Parkdale—High Park, ON
Thank you very much, Ms. Boniface.
I intentionally didn't raise my hand because I didn't want the plant interfering with you again.
I would just point out that obviously we'll have some differences of opinion as to what's routine versus what is not. I thought—and I think some of my Liberal colleagues thought—that these were fairly uncontroversial. I would just respectfully point out to Mr. Motz—and again, thank you for letting me address this now—that I think if we're going with only one panel, then having only two witnesses for a two-hour meeting would be not an efficient use of our time. That's why I was contemplating four or five witnesses for the full two hours, which is roughly two per hour. I think that's well within what committees are capable of, this committee and others.
I would just gently push back on this idea.... This committee does have resource limitations, as does every committee, and they may be exacerbated by things that are being suggested, including, potentially, the retaining of outside counsel.
I would also say that Canadians and this Parliament will benefit from our doing work that is thorough but also timely. We know there is no time limit prescribed within the statute or within the motion that created this committee, but this committee's work is also commencing now. Within 60 days an inquiry will commence. That informal inquiry must report back within one year of the invocation of the declaration, etc. Therefore, there are notional time parameters for the work we're doing, and I think it's incumbent on all of us to respect those time parameters for the benefit of all Canadians, so that they understand that a declaration of an emergency was invoked and that the study is being done and being done thoroughly but on a timely basis.
I will place in the hands of the committee members the ultimate question Mr. Green has put forward as to whether we should just defer this to a later date. I am conscious that, as he correctly points out, there is the matter of reporting within seven sitting days pursuant to...I forget the clause—it's around section 62 or 63—in the statute that says this committee must make some type of report back to Parliament, I believe, by next Tuesday. Perhaps that should be addressed immediately.
I'll leave it at that. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Liberal
Yasir Naqvi Liberal Ottawa Centre, ON
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Mr. Virani has insight into my mind, because he pretty much used exactly the same words I was going to use, which were just to be cautious, since we do not have unlimited time, and that we be mindful of the responsibility that has been given to us under the statute. There are two different processes, and different language has been used in the legislation that gives us guidance as to the scope of the work we have to do and its timeliness. The way I see it, what we'll be engaging in is more of an oversight process.
The other point is that I just want to caution—and I heard Mr. Green use this term twice now—about using the term “interim report”. Let's not add things we don't see in the statute. The statute speaks of “a report”, so let's not start giving labels to things that may not exist, because doing that will just get us off track, if I may say so. I just want to make sure we try to focus on the statutory language and the mandate that has been given, and remember that there are some timelines embedded in that document.
Thank you.