Declaration of Emergency Committee on Sept. 22nd, 2022

[The Joint Co-Chair, Bloc, Rhéal Fortin]

Okay.

Please go ahead, Senator Carignan.

[Claude Carignan]

I would like to speak Senator Cordy's point. We have to remember that the witnesses have three weeks to answer the priority questions and six weeks to answer the others. That is a lot of time. They do not have seven days to answer the questions; rather, we have seven days to ask them. The witnesses have three or six weeks to answer them.

To Mr. Green's point, I would add that we can invite witnesses back, and they can also ask to be invited back if they feel the need to complete or clarify their answers.

I think that is fair for the witnesses and for us, as members of the Committee.

[The Joint Co-Chair, Bloc, Rhéal Fortin]

Thank you, Senator Carignan.

Senator Boniface, you have the floor.

[The Joint Chair, Hon. Gwen Boniface (Senator (Ontario) ISG]

First of all, it's nice to see everybody back.

I thank Senator Carignan for the clarification. I think that helped me in terms of where my thinking was on this.

As a follow-up to Senator White, perhaps in number we look at something like each group providing two questions. They merge them together. If more questions come out of it, we can deal with it witness by witness.

I come from the perspective where I've appeared before committees. I think we have to keep in mind that not everybody comes from a place where there's an army of people behind them to draft and provide their presentation. In my experience, often the notice was to appear three days hence. Then there are all these demands on you in terms of it. We have to respect that not every witness comes to the table equally.

I think the bigger question we are dealing with here is really getting to the witnesses and then as a committee working collaboratively to really come to terms with which witnesses we need back and which witnesses we may need some clarification from.

In principle, the way Senator Carignan has done the amendment, we could limit the questions. We will still have witnesses whereby we'll have to make decisions on whether we need them back or not. But this sounds overly detailed without really having a vision of who it is we're talking about.

My final point is that it's the witnesses we need to get to and then learn from. As we go through the witness list, other issues may arise. We are coming to witnesses who are very core to the actual operation. I think they're necessary to hear from as soon as possible.

[The Joint Co-Chair, Bloc, Rhéal Fortin]

Mr. Green, you have the floor. Then it will be Mr. Virani's turn.

[The Joint Chair, NDP, Matthew Green]

As a bit of a recommendation—I think we're getting somewhere—maybe folks would be open to a five-minute recess to work on some of the logistics. That way we're not just doing our rounds. Hopefully we'd be able to come back to the committee with a tighter proposed amendment. That might get us somewhere here.

[The Joint Co-Chair, Bloc, Rhéal Fortin]

So you are proposing that we suspend the meeting.

[The Joint Chair, NDP, Matthew Green]

I suggest a five-minute recess just for us to discuss among parties on the logistics of it.

[The Joint Co-Chair, Bloc, Rhéal Fortin]

Is everyone agreed?

[Voices]

Agreed.

[The Joint Co-Chair, Bloc, Rhéal Fortin]

So we will break for five...

[Jane Cordy]

Mr. Chair, can we have actually a reading of the whole motion as it's going to be with an amendment so that it's—

[Glen Motz, Conservative, Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB]

That's what we're going to work on now.

[Jane Cordy]

Yes, that's what I want.

[The Joint Co-Chair, Bloc, Rhéal Fortin]

Right now, the only amendments to the motion as drafted would require members to submit their questions within seven days after the witnesses appeared rather than before they appear. I do not think there are any other changes to the original motion. I will let you think about it.

The meeting is suspended.

[The Joint Co-Chair, Bloc, Rhéal Fortin]

We will now resume our meeting, colleagues.

I bet Ms. Burke that the meeting would end at 7:30 pm. Otherwise, I will owe her a coffee. So please help me out.

Mr. Motz, you have an amended motion to propose; please read it out.

[Glen Motz, Conservative, Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB]

I am reading it based on the conversations we had with colleagues. Thank you for your input.

The motion will now read—because Vernon doesn't trust that I might not slip something in—as follows: “That the Committee send to each individual organization who appears as a witness written questions submitted by the members of the Committee for response, provided that (a) members shall provide their questions to the Joint Clerks within seven days of the date of their appearance, (b) members may designate up to two questions per representative group, (c) individuals or organizations shall be directed to respond within 21 days of the joint clerks sending them, (d) the joint clerks shall arrange for translation of the responses received, and circulate them to committee members and publish them on the website upon completion of the translation.”

[The Joint Co-Chair, Bloc, Rhéal Fortin]

Do we have the revised motion in writing?

[Glen Motz, Conservative, Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB]

Mine is written, but I can—

[The Joint Co-Chair, Bloc, Rhéal Fortin]

It is for the minutes.

[Glen Motz, Conservative, Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB]

I can say it again with clarity now that I have—

[The Joint Co-Chair, Bloc, Rhéal Fortin]

That will not be necessary. Ms. Burke says it is okay.

I believe everyone agrees to the amended motion.

(Motion as amended agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

[The Joint Co-Chair, Bloc, Rhéal Fortin]

Here is Motion 4:That the Committee, noting the frustrations of its members with certain witnesses evading questions or declining to answer questions on grounds not conceded by this Committee or the law of parliamentary privilege, invite the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel of the Senate, the Deputy Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel of the House of Commons, and representatives of both Houses' procedural services to brief the Committee as soon as possible concerning the rights of committees to procure responses to oral questioning and the procedures for compelling those responses.

I suspect the translation into French is not up to par. Perhaps the English version is better. The wording in French, “contraindre ces réponses”, for the English “compelling those answers” is incorrect.

Mr. Motz, would you like to present your motion?

[Glen Motz, Conservative, Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB]

I would classify this as the Matt Green motion, and that's a compliment. It's just something for clarity.

We talked with one of the clerks earlier. I think it's important that as a committee we know where we stand, what the process should be if we have some need to compel witnesses to actually answer questions, and how we go about doing that. What does parliamentary privilege actually mean when it comes to this committee and what that all looks like?

Again, I think it's quite self-explanatory. Then we will have a better understanding of where we have to go should witnesses who come forward refuse to answer questions.

[The Joint Co-Chair, Bloc, Rhéal Fortin]

Does anyone else wish to speak to Motion 4?

Mr. Virani, you have the floor.