Evidence of meeting #12 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 witnesses.
A video is available from Parliament.
Bloc
Vernon White
I'm in a not dissimilar place.
I think this will be a new bible that we'll be writing if we do this, particularly as to the types of questions we want to ask. I do think we missed some opportunities with our last witnesses. I felt that I was often left with more questions than I received answers at the end of some of those presentations, so I would like to see them again back in front of us.
I would totally support that if we get to a point of having a witness where we still have a lot of questions we be permitted to provide a list of written questions with an expectation for a list of written answers within seven days of their having been a witness or something like that. Obviously we can't obligate some of those witnesses to provide answers, but I think we should do everything we can to do that. I would support that. Although I understand why you're asking it, I think it's almost impossible to perform—personally anyway.
Liberal
Arif Virani Liberal Parkdale—High Park, ON
Along similar lines, I think the practicality of this motion number three is seriously in question in terms of there being no actual limitation, for example, on the number of questions. You could have 100 questions being provided, only five of which would be prioritized.
I think this was raised earlier in a different context, but on the notion of also having written questions submitted and then answered, if that person didn't appear, you lose the ability to cross-examine or challenge the people on their evidence, and you also can't use written interrogatories as a form of compelling information from a witness who otherwise has the discretion whether or not to appear. I think that's important.
The notion of potentially following up after the fact, as Senator White has mentioned, after a witness has appeared, if there were still outstanding issues, that I think would probably circumscribe a number of questions and force us to be a bit more targeted in the questions that we pose and also allow us to pose fewer questions thereby facilitating the work of the committee.
For those reasons, I would be opposing this.
Bloc
Conservative
Glen Motz Conservative Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB
Chair, I appreciate the interventions from my colleagues.
Notwithstanding those comments, what I find to be untenable moving forward is the fact that we have so many witnesses and we want to have some sort of a timely response to the conclusion of this particular work of this committee. If we are going to bring witnesses back that we weren't satisfied with the first time around and we can't even get through our first round of witnesses in a proper way, I can't imagine how long we're going to be here. I mean, this session goes until 2025. We just might still be here.
Well, not you, Gwen. I'm sorry.
Would you be amicable to an amendment to this? I'm prepared to present a friendly amendment to our own motion: That the motion be amended by replacing the words “listed on the analyst's work plan dated May 11, 2022” with “who appears as a witness”, and replacing the words “the adoption of this motion” with “the date of their appearance”.
That would then read: “That the motion be amended to say that “provided that”....
Conservative
Glen Motz Conservative Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB
That would make better sense, I think. Not better sense, but it would probably take care of the concerns that have been addressed. As well, then, it would leave those of us who have lingering questions to ask them.
Liberal
NDP
The Joint Chair NDP Matthew Green
You may recall in the testimony of the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance that I was repeatedly trying to get basic information regarding whether or not there were notes available that prepared her for this committee. Currently, I'll share with you that the only way we could get that was through an ATIP.
So we did file for the ATIP. We just found out that they're going to request another 90 days to be able to provide this basic information.
Again, I just want to underscore the need for this committee to have the ability to demand documents in a timely way. That's why I think something like this, which would give them a timeline on it, would hopefully help avoid future instances where people are just, in my opinion, obstructing this committee from being able to do its basic work.
Bloc
The Joint Chair Bloc Rhéal Fortin
Before we hear from Senator Carignan and Mr. Virani, I want to make sure everything is clear.
Mr. Motz, you proposed an amendment, is that correct? It was a favourable amendment, but we are discussing it.
September 22nd, 2022 / 6:55 p.m.
Conservative
Bloc
The Joint Chair Bloc Rhéal Fortin
Are we agreed to adopt the amendment?
Ms. Burke just pointed out that Mr. Motz cannot propose an amendment to his own motion. But if someone else proposes the same amendment, are we agreed on the principle?
Liberal
Arif Virani Liberal Parkdale—High Park, ON
I would like to hear it again, but I'll raise two things right off the top. One is that there's still no limit on the number of questions, but even more importantly, two more points arise. A situation could arise where you are then posing written interrogatories towards a Mr. John Doe or Ms. Jane Doe who we think is going to show up. Life intervenes and they never show up, so we never have a chance to cross-examine them on that information.
In that situation, I would say that—
Liberal
Arif Virani Liberal Parkdale—High Park, ON
It's only after the evidence? Okay. But I also have some concern—
Liberal
Arif Virani Liberal Parkdale—High Park, ON
Well, then, we still don't get to cross-examine on their responses, because it's after the evidence has been tendered.
The last piece is on the point in (c)(ii):
provided that a failure to respond to questions shall be approached by the Committee as if a witness declined to respond to an oral question asked at a Committee meeting
That to me seems to be going down the slope of actually sanctioning the individual who has failed to respond. Sanctioning people for failing to respond in committee is something that can only be done in our chamber, in the House of Commons itself. If that's leading us towards contempt proceedings, then I have significant issues with the way this is phrased.
I'll remind my friends opposite that among people on their witness list are Conservative politicians such as the Premier of Ontario.
Bloc
Claude Carignan Senator, Quebec (Mille Isles), C
I will propose the amendment suggested by Mr. Motz, which would require members to submit their questions within three weeks after the witnesses appeared, rather than within three weeks after the adoption of the motion.
I would like to suggest a further amendment, namely, to replace “three weeks” with “seven days”. So that would mean seven days rather than three weeks after the witnesses appeared.
Bloc
The Joint Chair Bloc Rhéal Fortin
The amended motion would therefore propose that committee members may submit their questions to the joint clerks up to seven days after the witness appeared. Is that everyone's understanding?
Agreed.
Was there anything else, Senator Carignan?
