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
NDP
The Joint Chair NDP Matthew Green
Because as sympathetic as I am to the motion, I'm also charitable to the very real critique that there's a presupposition in this. I just want to put that on the table because, for me, process is more important than being right. I would like to make sure that we're following the process to come to a conclusion that is procedurally correct.
The Joint Clerk Ms. Miriam Burke
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
In the finding of contempt, particularly in the case of refusal to answer a question, the committee would have to adopt a motion compelling the witness to answer the question, first of all, so it would have to be before the committee.
Following that, if a motion to compel the witness passed, and the witness still refused to answer at that point, a report would be drafted. The committee would adopt a report to that effect stating the fact and the belief that a contempt has occurred, and then it would be presented in both Houses for action.
NDP
The Joint Chair NDP Matthew Green
If I do recall, I still have the floor.
Thank you for that.
There are other instances as well which I, in my opinion, was very frustrated by. I reference testimony from a senior bureaucrat within the Ministry of Finance who also refused to provide basic information in a way that drew a point of order and a discussion, and that was set aside. That's what led me to the inquiry on what this process is.
I do hope that for those who are watching tonight, they recognize the seriousness of this committee, that they understand the parliamentary privileges that we have bestowed upon us by our House and the Senate; and that they realize when they come to this committee, they ought not embark in anything that is lying through omission, or obstruction, or refusal to co-operate with this committee.
With that being said, Mr. Chair, through you, I would perhaps ask the mover of this motion to consider withdrawing the motion given that it's not procedurally correct, and for us to, in our own work, perhaps come back to this committee if they believe there were instances that would trigger the process as laid out to us by the clerks so that we can follow the due course within our procedural rules or Standing Orders.
Bloc
Conservative
Glen Motz Conservative Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB
Thank you, Chair, and thank you for everyone's interventions.
First of all, this motion is about document production and not about their being here as a witness, so that's what this motion is referring to, because we're talking about responses to our request of May 31. That's number one.
I want to remind committee members that we had the Department of Justice officials here who basically just thumbed their noses at us. They didn't respond to anything.
You're right, Mr. Green. We do have the need to find out. Witnesses need to be able to answer the questions that are posed to them, and not just refuse to answer them. We need a process of how we can have a contempt of—
Conservative
Glen Motz Conservative Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB
I'm just suggesting that while I understand there is a process in the finding of contempt and we need to do that, we may want to consider the whole idea of developing some protocol within this committee to do exactly as Mr. Green suggested and the clerk suggested. That is that we look at some sort of a motion when we have a witness before us, and we're talking about a witness.
Bloc
The Joint Chair Bloc Rhéal Fortin
Thank you, Mr. Motz.
Before we move on to Mr. Brock, I must tell the committee members that, at the start of the meeting, Ms. Burke received an envelope containing a USB key. I do not know what is on the key, but the envelope says it is documents from the RCMP.
“Disclosure to RCMP, PCO and CBSA”.
This key might provide some answers to our questions, but we cannot of course review the material this evening.
Ms. Burke, I expect you will be sending us that material next week.
Mr. Motz, you wanted to say something.
Conservative
Glen Motz Conservative Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB
Could that be the missing recording from the Nova Scotia event?
Bloc
The Joint Chair Bloc Rhéal Fortin
Ha, ha!
It is nonetheless important information concerning the RCMP's testimony.
I share the frustration expressed in this motion, and in previous motions. I think we need to find a way to deliver the results of our work and fulfill the mandate we received from the House of Commons and the Senate. So there are measures that must be taken.
The spirit of Motion 6 is interesting. As to the RCMP, however, we received the USB key at the start of the meeting, as I said, and do not know what is on it. On the other hand, the process does not appear to be consistent with the rules of the House and the Senate.
Mr. Motz, as the mover of this motion, do you think it would be advisable to suspend its consideration for the time being, until we find out what is on the key, for one thing, and secondly, to change the wording of the motion in order to fall into line with the applicable contempt rules?
Conservative
Glen Motz Conservative Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB
Thank you, Mr. Chair. That's good advice. I would ask that we adjourn this particular motion at this time.
Bloc
Liberal
Rachel Bendayan Liberal Outremont, QC
Mr. Chair, I think we need to vote on the suggestion to suspend consideration of this motion, because we are not in agreement.
Bloc
The Joint Chair Bloc Rhéal Fortin
Since you are not in agreement, we will vote on the suggestion to suspend consideration of Motion 6.
Please proceed, Mr. Joint Clerk.
The Joint Clerk of the Committee Mr. Mark Palmer
We're voting on the motion to adjourn the debate on motion 6.
(Motion agreed to: yeas 8; nays 3)
Bloc
The Joint Chair Bloc Rhéal Fortin
We will now move on to consideration of Motion 7, which reads as follows: That the Committee, noting the use of redactions in the documents provided by the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, the Canada Border Services Agency and the Department of Transport in response to the Committee's May 31, 2022, order, though the order was silent on authorized redactions, directs the Joint Clerks to request the deputy heads of those institutions to provide this Committee, within two weeks and in both official languages, with a written explanation of the grounds for each redaction made to the documents and, where possible, a summary of the information redacted.
Before we continue, just a comment on the translation. The French version of the motion that we will be working on uses the word “rédactions”, although the correct French term is “caviardage”. “Redactions” is the correct term in English, but “rédactions” has another meaning in French.
Does anyone wish to comment on Motion 7?
You have the floor, Ms. Bendayan.
Liberal
Rachel Bendayan Liberal Outremont, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
With regard to redaction, we discussed that at length at a previous meeting. My understanding is that we agreed that, if we have questions or if any documents raise concerns, we can then asked questions about a specific document.
Motion 7 seems to be raising questions about all the documents. We are talking about hundreds of documents, so I would invite Mr. Brock and Mr. Motz to identify the documents in question.
Bloc
The Joint Chair Bloc Rhéal Fortin
What you are asking for, Ms. Bendayan, is amendment to the motion. Rather than being general in scope, you are saying that the motion should identify the redacted passages for which Mr. Motz and Mr. Brock would like clarification. Is that correct?
Liberal
Rachel Bendayan Liberal Outremont, QC
It is not for me to propose the amendment, but I feel that we cannot support the motion as it is worded.