Evidence of meeting #15 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 chair.
A video is available from Parliament.
6:40 p.m.
NDP
The Acting Joint Chair NDP Matthew Green
Thank you.
We still have motions. We will now give the floor to Mr. Fortin.
6:40 p.m.
Liberal
Rachel Bendayan Liberal Outremont, QC
I have a point of order. Mr. Chair. I thought my intervention was to move that we discuss the work plan, and you said that—
6:40 p.m.
NDP
The Acting Joint Chair NDP Matthew Green
You didn't move that motion accordingly. You made an intervention and you shared your opinion with the committee. The committee heard your opinion and we moved to—
6:40 p.m.
Liberal
Rachel Bendayan Liberal Outremont, QC
You indicated that the purpose of this meeting was to discuss the work plan, and now—
6:40 p.m.
NDP
The Acting Joint Chair NDP Matthew Green
It was a business meeting, as identified on the agenda. If there's any confusion around the notice of agenda I would just ask you to reflect back on that notice. We had Senator Harder's intervention, and now we have Mr. Fortin.
Sir, the floor is yours.
6:40 p.m.
Bloc
The Joint Chair Bloc Rhéal Fortin
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I tabled two notices of motion, which were distributed this week and which all members received in both official languages.
I'll quickly read the first motion about the redacted documents:
WHEREAS, many of the documents produced in response to the motion adopted on May 31, 2022, for the production of all security assessments and legal opinions which the government relied upon to justify the declaration of emergency on February 15, 2022, have been extensively redacted; IT IS AGREED that each department, person, and/or agency that produced documents with redacted portions be required to provide the Committee with an unredacted version of those documents, or an explanation of the grounds for each redaction, within10 days of the adoption of this motion.
I can't see the point of discussing it any further. The motion speaks for itself. I believe it's important for us to have complete documents. If that's not possible, then I'd like to know why.
6:40 p.m.
Senator, Ontario, PSG
Thank you, Chair, and thank you, Mr. Fortin.
My view on this motion is I'm not opposed to it, but I think we should be realistic as to what our expectations ought to be. I think it is unusual and perhaps a step too far to ask officials to come with unredacted documents. Those documents are by definition secure and classified. I have no objection to having them come and speak to the redaction, but I can't imagine that they would come and table unredacted documents, and I doubt that they would be coming here to say, “We made a mistake with respect to the redactions and are prepared to provide greater unredaction.”
I'm not opposed to the motion. I just want us not to build up expectations in our minds or anybody else's that there wasn't due consideration given by officials to the redaction process.
6:45 p.m.
Conservative
Glen Motz Conservative Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB
Thank you, Chair.
I, too, support the motion and its intent.
For those of you who have ever been in a situation in a court where there are redacted documents, there's generally always the expectation that the explanation for those redactions is included in the actual redaction. There is usually a table that says, “It may have been redacted for reason A,” and reason A is laid out in another document, a piece of paper, which says it's because of whatever source information, from my experience, or whatever it might be.
It's reasonable to have a motion like this, in those cases where redactions are done, in order to provide an explanation as to why they were redacted, and the grounds for them. As Senator Harder said, we can certainly ask for unredacted documents. That's certainly the expectation this committee had, but we understand there might be some limitations there.
6:45 p.m.
NDP
The Joint Chair NDP Matthew Green
We have a motion on the floor. Is there any other discussion on the motion?
At this time, then, I'd like to move to the vote.
We can test the floor and see if we have unanimous consent.
October 20th, 2022 / 6:45 p.m.
Liberal
Arif Virani Liberal Parkdale—High Park, ON
Mr. Chair, it's Arif Virani here. Could I speak to the...? Can you hear me?
6:45 p.m.
Liberal
Arif Virani Liberal Parkdale—High Park, ON
With respect to this point on Monsieur Fortin's motion, I just heard the intervention from Senator Harder. I would indicate that if people are to be arriving and explaining the redactions they've made, that's one issue, but to arrive with unredacted portions being provided to the committee is not something I would deem to be suitable or advisable; rather, it's just having the person attending.
I would move an amendment to the motion, to read, “that each department, person and/or agency that produced documents with redacted portions be required to appear before the committee and provide an explanation of the grounds for each redaction”.
I am removing only the words “with an unredacted version of those documents”.
6:45 p.m.
Bloc
The Joint Chair Bloc Rhéal Fortin
With respect, Mr. Chair, even though the point made by our colleague Mr. Virani is a good one, I don't think his amendment would accomplish anything. In fact, the motion requests that the documents be produced unredacted or that the reasons for the redaction be provided.
And it would still remain possible for a witness to produce unredacted documents. A witness could just decide to remove the redaction, making it no longer necessary to give an explanation. My motion therefore strikes me as perfectly correct as is. I agree with Senator Harder. I'd be surprised if any witnesses were to come and apologize and say they had made a mistake. It could happen, but I would be astonished if it did.
If it did, all we would get would be information about why there was a redaction. With respect, I'd prefer to see the rationale provided in writing, as indicated in the motion. People could then come and testify if they wished. I have no objection to that. It might even be useful to hear their explanations. However, suggesting that they come and testify about the redaction could be a lengthy and tedious process. It could easily require an evening or two, and getting an explanation in writing would be much easier and faster.
6:45 p.m.
Liberal
6:45 p.m.
Liberal
Arif Virani Liberal Parkdale—High Park, ON
Thank you very much.
The other point I would make is that in response to a point raised by Mr. Motz, and it's a fair point, when documents are provided, there's an indication of a type of privilege. In court you'd often see solicitor-client privilege. It's just indicated that the portion that is blacked out is under solicitor-client privilege. The text behind the redaction is not provided along with the assertion of the privilege. It's simply the assertion of the privilege. That's the first point.
I'd also like to speak to the point that I think, given everything that is going on, it's really incumbent upon us to be moving as expeditiously as possible with hearing witnesses. I'm not sure if this is the best-suited motion to be addressing the redactions, which have been done for what I presume are very valid and legitimate reasons. That actually detracts from the important work of this committee, which many of us are eager to get on with.
6:50 p.m.
NDP
The Joint Chair NDP Matthew Green
On a technical note, Mr. Virani, it doesn't appear that your headset is connected. It's creating an issue for translation and audio. Can you please ensure that you've selected your headset within the Zoom settings?
6:50 p.m.
Liberal
Arif Virani Liberal Parkdale—High Park, ON
Is this better? I apologize, Mr. Chair.
Is that a bit better for the translation and everyone in the room?
6:50 p.m.
NDP
6:50 p.m.
Liberal
Arif Virani Liberal Parkdale—High Park, ON
The wording of the amendment would simply be to remove the words in the second paragraph, which commences with “It is agreed”. I would be removing portions of the second line in that second paragraph, so it says, “be required to appear before the committee and provide an explanation of the grounds for each redaction”. Also, I believe 10 days may be a bit onerous. I would suggest that it be switched to three days from the adoption.