Declaration of Emergency Committee on Sept. 22nd, 2022

[Claude Carignan]

Yes.

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

We will now hear from Ms. Bendayan, followed by Ms. Cordy and Senator White.

Please go ahead, Ms. Bendayan.

[Rachel Bendayan, Liberal, Outremont, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

To begin, I would like to speak to Senator Carignan's proposed amendment.

Out of consideration for our witnesses, we have to remember that not all witnesses will be able to answer 30 or 50 questions in seven days. They have other things to do. Furthermore, we do not know how many questions there will be, since we have not discussed that yet.

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

Pardon me, I would like to say something. The amendment proposes that the members provide their questions to the Joint Clerks within seven days after the witnesses appear, not that the witnesses must answer them within that timeframe.

[Rachel Bendayan, Liberal, Outremont, QC]

Thank you for pointing that out, Mr. Chair.

I will limit my remarks to the following. As you know, our meetings are now just two hours long. If we have two groups of witnesses for one hour each, it is very likely that we will not be able to discuss all the possible topics with them. If we send written questions that are unrelated to the testimony they gave before the Committee, that is not fair. We would be opening Pandora's boxes in writing and would not be able, as several people pointed out, to see the witnesses, look them in the eyes and listen to what they have to say.

This is something that could happen, which in terms of fairness and procedure I find very difficult to accept.

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

Senator Cordy, you have the floor.

[Jane Cordy, Senator (Nova Scotia) PSG]

Thank you.

I've heard the amendment, but I'd like to know exactly what I'm voting on, because I'm hearing the amendment, but what else is included? Is it included up to five questions per individual and we're giving them one week? That could be, if all 11 people around the table ask five questions, 55 questions and one week to answer them. That's a bit unreasonable.

Could somebody read to me—I'm brand new, so maybe I'm slow catching on—the proposed motion with the amendment and without whatever somebody else said?

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

We only let the senators have one question.

[Vernon White]

But it's always the best one.

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

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

Senator White, you have the floor.

[Vernon White]

Yes, I don't even know anymore.

My perspective is, I thought we were saying we would have seven days to provide them with questions. I don't know that we set a time limit for when they would provide them back.

I'm still a little bit concerned about having a limit on the number of questions, only because I know that over here in the House, you guys have a lot more time to write than we do over in the Senate. I would like to have a little bit of a limitation, maybe even by group. We have how many groups represented here, five or six? That would make it a bit easier so people could put their questions together. Otherwise, I can honestly see a lot more work going back and forth than maybe we have time for.

[Jane Cordy]

Would we be hiring more staff? This would definitely be untenable for....

[Vernon White]

There's a former Liberal looking for more staff.

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

[Jane Cordy]

It was a suggestion to be efficient.

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

Mr. Virani, you have the floor.

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

I would like to point out two things, and add something else.

I still don't see the ability to cross-examine on the answers to the interrogatories. I still don't see, pursuant to what Senator White just mentioned, a limit on the number of questions.

I'll inject a third element here, and we know this works on both sides. Sometimes the questions you pose are, in part, triggered by what you've heard from the other people around the table. If, perhaps, Mr. Brock asked certain questions that elicited certain types of testimony and I wanted to perhaps respond to it, I would phrase my questions accordingly to elicit some sort of response. That's the natural to and fro of a committee process. That possibility is completely eliminated when we don't see the types of written interrogatories that are put to the witnesses after the fact, and I think that diminishes the quality of the kind of evidence we will hear.

Thank you.

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

Thank you, Mr. Virani.

Mr. Green, you have the floor.

[The Joint Chair, NDP, Matthew Green]

In response to the honourable member with the fantastic bow tie, I would say that, as a committee, we always have the ability, quite rightly within our rights as a committee, to call witnesses back. I'm unwilling to accept the argument that just because the questions are written and go out that there isn't an opportunity for cross-examination. If we feel that somebody isn't being truthful or perhaps has provided contradictory testimony, we would always retain the right, as a committee, to call them back to this function.

From my perspective, when you talk about the to and fro, I can share with you that many of the meetings we've had to date have left me feeling pretty incomplete in terms of the opportunity to engage with people. I think it would actually be an opportunity for us to be less adversarial to allow somebody an opportunity to clarify something that was said or provide information that they didn't have at hand, rather than take the position that we feel maybe they weren't being truthful or maybe they were providing an obstruction, in our own opinions, and then recapitulate a fight to drag them back before this committee.

I actually look at it from an opposite perspective. This is an opportunity to prevent that by giving people the opportunity to reply in writing. I think if we could zero in on the number, I would agree with equity. If there was the opportunity to do that—by block or what have you, or three questions, or something reasonable—I would be happy to support that.

On the last point, we do have to get to a point where facts are established at this committee. I'll continue to repeat that and identify any instances where we don't feel like we're getting that work done. I think this is a way to do that.

I hope that we can find a common ground on this and move forward.

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

Thank you, Mr. Green.

Mr. Motz, you have the floor.

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

Chair, in response to some comments that had been made earlier in regard to the number of questions, historically, I believe the ethics committee had a similar type of action on witnesses for the WE scandal. They found that a multitude of questions from all different parties were similar. The responses came back and—I'm just making this number up—they may have had five, six or eight questions that were almost identical from five, six or eight different people. They responded as one to that question.

We're not going to get an overabundance of questions. I agree that if we agree to limit the number of questions we have—or not limit, but reduce them a bit—I think we can certainly live with that.

[The Joint Chair, NDP, Matthew Green]

Mr. Chair, I'd like to make a suggestion.

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

First, I would like to check if Senator Carignan and Senator Boniface are the only ones who wish to speak. They are the only ones on my list. Is there anyone else?

Mr. Green, did you want to say something now?

[The Joint Chair, NDP, Matthew Green]

No, I'll relinquish and allow [Inaudible—Editor].