Declaration of Emergency Committee on Oct. 20th, 2022

[The Joint Clerk, Mr. Mark Palmer]

In the second line of the motion—the paragraph that begins with, “It is agreed”—we would be removing “provide the committee with an unredacted version of the documents” and adding instead “appear”.

I want to make sure that's correct.

[The Joint Chair, NDP, Matthew Green]

Yes.

(Amendment agreed to: yeas 6; nays 5)

We will now proceed to debate on the main motion as amended.

Mr. Naqvi, the floor is yours.

[Yasir Naqvi, Liberal, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Chair, I would like to move an amendment to the amended motion.

I move that we change it from “within 10 days” to “within 30 days” of the adoption of this motion.

[The Joint Chair, NDP, Matthew Green]

You've heard the amendment as presented by Mr. Naqvi.

Is there any debate on the amendment?

Go ahead, Monsieur Fortin.

[The Joint Chair, Bloc, Rhéal Fortin]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I understand the principle of allowing people some time if we asked them to remove the redactions or explain each one in writing, but I don't understand the idea of allowing 30 days before appearing.

If the proposal that I think is being put forward by my Liberal Party colleagues, namely not to request unredacted documents but simply ask witnesses to come here to explain reasons for redactions, then I can't see why that should take 30 days. I feel that our work has been held up long enough. We've been having trouble getting witnesses, for all kinds of reasons, including the fact that many of them are currently appearing before the emergency commission presided by Justice Rouleau, and that has been slowing things down.

In short, this redaction issue could be dealt with as a priority, perhaps next week or the week after that. I think that allowing 30 days would be inappropriate and delay things unnecessarily.

[The Joint Chair, NDP, Matthew Green]

We have on the speakers list Senator Harder followed by Ms. Bendayan.

Senator Harder, the floor is yours.

[Peter Harder]

Thank you, Chair.

The work that we're asking to come before this committee has already been done by virtue of the redaction. I don't see why 10 days are overly burdensome, because the work has been done. I hope there has been a thought process that can be revealed to us. If, for some reason, we find out that they need a couple of extra days, we can deal with that, but I'm a little reluctant to give 30 days and hear that on day 29.

I don't think the amendment's necessary, frankly.

[The Joint Chair, NDP, Matthew Green]

Thank you.

Ms. Bendayan, the floor is yours.

[Rachel Bendayan, Liberal, Outremont, QC]

Thank you.

In response to my colleague, I agree that 30 days is perhaps rather long, in view of the amendment we've just adopted. However, I think we could agree on 15 or 20 days, which is at least a little more than 10 days, simply because we're talking about thousands of documents. They have to be examined and contain the requested information.

I have something else to propose, because, to be honest, the amendment that was read is not altogether clear. I thought we had agreed here, only a few minutes ago, to what you wanted, which is basically information in writing without the need to have witnesses appear.

Perhaps we could agree that it could be done in writing and sent to the committee. The reasons for the redactions could be explained very briefly. I don't know whether you would agree with 15 days rather than 10 days. If so, I believe we could arrive at a solution.

[The Joint Chair, NDP, Matthew Green]

Perhaps I could make a procedural note. What you've suggested is a subamendment on an amendment. That would require Mr. Naqvi's withdrawing his amendment, with the unanimous consent of this committee, in order to consider yours.

Is your understanding the same?

[Yasir Naqvi, Liberal, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Before I consider doing that, I just want to make one point.

We're talking about a lot of documents, with perhaps—

[The Joint Chair, NDP, Matthew Green]

This is a procedural point that I'm making. You're entering into debate.

My question to you is this: Do you want to withdraw that? If not, I'll go to Mr. Fortin and then come back to you for the debate.

[Yasir Naqvi, Liberal, Ottawa Centre, ON]

You can go to Mr. Fortin and then come back to me.

[The Joint Chair, NDP, Matthew Green]

Mr. Fortin, the floor is yours.

[The Joint Chair, Bloc, Rhéal Fortin]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm prepared to agree to Ms. Bendayan's request if we have the explanations in writing. She asked that a 15 day period be allowed, and I can live with that.

According to the amendment we've just adopted, they are going to come and testify. I don't understand why we would give them them 30 days, since they can testify right now. We adopted an amendment on that point.

If we want to move a new amendment in which we request explanations in writing, then I think we could agree on 15 days.

[The Joint Chair, NDP, Matthew Green]

By my account, Mr. Naqvi, you had indicated that you were on the speakers list. If you would like to remain on the speakers list, the floor is yours. If not, I'll proceed to Ms. Bendayan.

[Yasir Naqvi, Liberal, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Thank you.

The point I want to make is that first of all, the motion says “within” 30 days. It does not say “after” 30 days. It gives us the latitude, as the motion reads at this moment, to be able to schedule individuals to appear between now and 30 days and explain the redaction.

We have seen the challenges associated with scheduling people to come before this committee. Giving this a time frame will help our clerks get the right people in front of the committee. That's number one.

Number two, if you stick with the 10 days as has been proposed, for example, that's probably just one committee, by my calculation, that would entail requiring people to come. Right there, I think we are setting ourselves up for failure in terms of getting people to appear and explain those redactions.

My suggestion was of a more practical nature. If folks feel more comfortable with 15 days, and they think we can get the work done with the appearing part, with 15 days for just the documents being submitted, then I can move that subamendment too, if it's agreeable to folks.

[The Joint Chair, NDP, Matthew Green]

You have an amendment on the floor. I'm just going to recap so we're all clear.

The reference to appearances was not limited to being within 10 days. What was within 10 days was the explanation for the redactions. As we are getting into amendments and subamendments on subamendments, I just want to make sure we're not losing what's before us here.

To stay in process, Mr. Naqvi, I will ask you whether you are withdrawing your amendment.

[Yasir Naqvi, Liberal, Ottawa Centre, ON]

I'm willing to withdraw it and to suggest another subamendment that takes into account what Mr. Fortin was suggesting.

[The Joint Chair, NDP, Matthew Green]

You can withdraw—

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

My hand is raised, Mr. Chair.

[The Joint Chair, NDP, Matthew Green]

There is a speakers list, Mr. Virani. You are on it. Thank you.

Mr. Naqvi, are you withdrawing your amendment so that we can proceed? You can't do a conditional withdrawal. You just have to withdraw your amendment and then we'll discuss it.

I appreciate what you're trying to do, but procedurally—

[Yasir Naqvi, Liberal, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Well, can I hear the views of others before I say yes?

[The Joint Chair, NDP, Matthew Green]

That's if they want to give you their views, or if we just want to move on—

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

I just want to check [Inaudible—Editor].