Declaration of Emergency Committee on Oct. 20th, 2022

[Rachel Bendayan, Liberal, Outremont, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

To follow up on what I said at the beginning of the meeting, I would like to propose something and I will do so by moving a motion, if you will permit, Mr. Chair.

I suggest that we discuss the list of witnesses now, along with the work plan for the coming weeks.

I understand that Senator Harder had moved a motion for the meeting to continue in camera as soon we address the matter of the witnesses. However, I would like to begin the discussion about the witnesses right now, in view of the importance of getting on with our work.

[The Joint Chair, NDP, Matthew Green]

We agreed that we would deal with the scheduling portion after we dealt with the substantive motions, so I would rule that motion out of order. It's dilatory, given that he's already presented that motion and we agreed that it would be the case.

[Rachel Bendayan, Liberal, Outremont, QC]

Who agreed, when you say “we” agreed?

[The Joint Chair, NDP, Matthew Green]

I agreed in a ruling that we would move forward with the motions.

[Rachel Bendayan, Liberal, Outremont, QC]

Thank you. It was your decision, Mr. Chair.

[The Joint Chair, NDP, Matthew Green]

It was the decision of the committee. Nobody objected to it.

With that being said, Mr. Fortin, the floor is yours.

[The Joint Chair, Bloc, Rhéal Fortin]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'll be brief. My comments are about the second motion that was sent to all members this week. I'll read the motion:

WHEREAS the Honourable Paul S. Rouleau is currently presiding over the public inquiry into the declaration of emergency issued in 2022 (Rouleau Commission), pursuant to the Order in Council of April 25, 2022, which was adopted to meet the provisions of section 63 of the Emergencies Act; WHEREAS, the Commission is scheduled to sit and hear witnesses from October 13, 2022, through November 25, 2022; WHEREAS, these hearings are public; WHEREAS, the evidence and documents produced before the Commission are of great interest to the members of the Joint Committee and may have a significant impact on the work of the Joint Committee, including the summoning of witnesses; IT IS AGREED that an analyst be assigned to the work of the Joint Committee to monitor the work of the Rouleau Commission and report back to the Committee with a summary of each day’s work, including the names of the witnesses heard and a brief summary of the information provided by the witnesses and the documents produced.

I won't read the motion again, because I believe it's pretty complete. This commission has been conducting its work on the same events that are the subject of our inquiry. It strikes me as rather inane, if I may say so, not to take testimony before the commission into consideration. Just as the information we receive in our joint committee work might be of interest to the Rouleau commission, the members of our committee might be interested in the information and testimony heard by the Rouleau commission.

If we are to do our job effectively, I think it it's essential for us to monitor the commission's work. I would further suggest that this monitoring process be carried out by an analyst, because each of us might track their work and remember only those parts of it that suit our respective theories of what went wrong, thus leading us to spend a long time arguing over our differences of opinion.

With someone neutral to do this work, however, such as an analyst with no particular axe to grind, they would simply listen and report objectively on what is being said before the Rouleau commission, thereby saving us a lot of time. We could then decide whether or not to use that testimony and the documents produced. If required, we could invite these witnesses to come and repeat to us what was said at the Rouleau commission or, if we had additional questions, request further details.

Once again, we can't ignore what's happening at the Rouleau commission if we want to do our work properly.

[The Joint Chair, NDP, Matthew Green]

I have Mr. Motz, and I'm going to put myself on the list after that.

Senator Boniface, after Mr. Motz I'd like you to take the chair.

Mr. Motz, the floor is yours.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I appreciate the intent of the motion, and I support its intent. The only concern I might have is the capacity of the analysts. We don't run the Library of Parliament. We don't manage their analysts, but we have given ourselves the ability to retain counsel, should we wish, or to retain some outside capacity, and I think that is something you should consider as the chair.

I agree with the intent of the motion. I think we need to have that data. I don't know if we need to have it daily, but I think it should be reported to the committee on a regular basis, maybe weekly. We need to have the capacity for someone to do it and do it well. I don't know whether the analysts have that capacity, and I don't think we should burden them with that side of it as well.

That's my intervention at this time. If we have to move an amendment, I will do so after some more interventions.

[The Joint Chair, NDP, Matthew Green]

Thank you.

Senator Boniface, could I pass the floor to you to chair?

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

Mr. Green, the floor is yours.

[The Joint Chair, NDP, Matthew Green]

Thank you.

I would concur in the spirit that I believe we need a mechanism in place that would receive the substantive information documents, evidentiary proceedings not just of the commission, but also, in my opinion, of some of the civil proceedings to help us get that greater disclosure that we have been unable to have provided to this committee by the government.

However, I don't think it is feasible to have staff do daily reviews of the proceedings. I have tried. These are nine hours a day on the inquiry, with lots of information, and I just don't know that it's feasible to have daily reports on witnesses and summaries to that effect.

However, I think for the documents and evidence that are presented there could be a process, whether it be weekly or whatever would seem most feasible, to allow us to get that information to be part of our reports and part of our summaries.

Maybe there's a point in time in this committee that we set aside specifically to look at the findings of that inquiry, because I think it's safe to say that we are not likely to be wrapped up before that happens, given our scheduling challenges here.

With that being said, I personally can't support this as it's presented, just given some of the institutional challenges.

I will make one more note here that I have been informed that if we do want to go outside to get some kind of consultant's support on this, it is a much longer process and it's one most likely bound by the collective agreements of the Hill that would suggest that we would need to prove that's not something that could be done here. From a labour perspective, as a good New Democrat, I would flag that. I will not be in a process as a chair where I'm getting grieved by the committee.

With that being said, I will end my comments there and take the chair back.

We have Mr. Fortin.

[The Joint Chair, Bloc, Rhéal Fortin]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Are you the chair now? You are. Okay.

I'd like to draw your attention to the fact that the motion does not mention reporting to our committee every day. The motion says, “report back to the Committee with a summary of each day’s work”.

A summary of each day's work, not a report to the committee every day.

It's a fine distinction, but an important one. I understand that the report can be prepared at the end of the week. I have no objection to that, of course. In my view, there should be a summary for each day. For example: today, Ms. Bendayan, Mr. Fortin, Mr. Green, and others were heard. It would keep us informed about what happened at the commission.

In any event, I understand what you're saying about the collective agreements and all that. That's one of the reasons why I was suggesting the task be assigned to an analyst. I have no objection to our hiring someone from outside, but the timing might be a problem for me. The commission is sitting until November 25, so if it takes a month to find someone, then of course we would be wasting our time and it would serve no purpose.

If we adopt a motion requesting analysts to do the work, and it turns out that they can't, owing to a staff shortage, then the analysts' supervisor could, I'm convinced, hire someone. I don't think the committee should be concerned about collective agreements because that would prevent us from ever getting anything done.

There are several collective agreements. It's not our role to deal with them. Our role is to take stock of the situation. With respect, I must say that it's fairly urgent. The commission has been sitting every day since October 13. We have already reached October 20, meaning that the commission has been under way for seven days. I believe we should reach a decision this evening. We should trust the analysts for this work. Once again, it's not a matter of reporting to us every day. We don't meet every day, in any event.

[The Joint Chair, NDP, Matthew Green]

I'm going to make another administrative comment, as we're now coming up on 7:30 p.m., to be expeditious with your statements if it's your intention that we get to scheduling. It's within all your rights to speak as long as you want, but just know that the more we're speaking to our motions, particularly to our own, the less time it gives us to get—

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

I'm done.

[The Joint Chair, NDP, Matthew Green]

Yes. We're going to have an hour left to deal with the scheduling.

So that we're clear, on the speakers list is Senator Carignan, followed by Mr. Virani, followed by Senator Harder.

Monsieur Carignan, the floor is yours.

[Claude Carignan, Senator, Quebec (Mille Isles), C]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to clarify something. I believe that the Rouleau commission testimony is being transcribed, and the transcripts are on the website. They automatically become part of the evidence we are receiving as a result of a motion we adopted. I'm trying to find the date it was adopted.

To summarize, the motion says that the committee considers the evidence, including the testimony and documents received by the standing committees of the House and the emergency commission are published on the website and are part of the evidence. That's an approximate summary of the motion.

Have I got that right?

My question is perhaps for the clerk.

Is it clear that everything heard by the Rouleau commission is part of the evidence before us and that we can use it?

I want to be sure that I've properly understood the meaning of the motions the committee adopted at the very outset. It might be useful to have a summary, or for someone to provide an explanation. If we had the transcripts, we would at least have something.

[The Joint Chair, NDP, Matthew Green]

Mr. Carignan, is it your request that we have the clerk comment on that, just for your assurance?

[Claude Carignan]

Yes, I want to be sure I have properly understood the meaning of the motion we adopted at the outset. I also want to make sure that this testimony is part of the evidence we have before us.

[The Joint Clerk, Mr. Mark Palmer]

Thank you, Senator Carignan.

The committee can use public information, which includes the evidence available to us from its deliberations.

[Claude Carignan]

So all of this testimony is not necessarily sent to us in bulk, as evidence, and we can use it.

Is that right?

[The Joint Clerk, Mr. Mark Palmer]

Yes that's correct.

[Claude Carignan]

We should perhaps move a motion to that effect.

Thank you.

[The Joint Chair, NDP, Matthew Green]

Thank you for the consideration.

We have Mr. Virani, followed by Mr. Harder.

Mr. Virani, the floor is yours.

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

Thank you.

Just following up on what Senator Carignan was mentioning, it would seem to my mind that it makes the present motion somewhat redundant if the evidence is already effectively before the committee, based on what we passed at previous meetings. That means Mr. Fortin seems to be asking just for an analyst to be assigned to summarize that same evidence.

To that point, I would actually ask, through you, Mr. Chair, for the analysts' input, going back to what Mr. Motz raised, so they can provide us at this committee tonight a sense of their own wherewithal to do this additional work.

I'm still curious as to whether an amendment may be proposed by Mr. Motz. Could we first hear from the analysts about their capacity to do exactly what is being asked? I'm sensitive to the point that was raised by Mr. Motz and others about their current workload.

Thank you.