Evidence of meeting #2 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.
9 p.m.
Bloc
The Joint Co-Chair Bloc Rhéal Fortin
First, we would consider Mr. Motz's motion at the next meeting, on Tuesday. Then the Senate and House of Commons law clerks could appear before the committee.
Are we in agreement on this?
Mr. Virani, you have the floor.
9 p.m.
Liberal
Arif Virani Liberal Parkdale—High Park, ON
I really don't want to belabour this, but the point of hearing from the law clerks is to help us determine the scope of what we're going to be looking at.
Let's hear former minister Beatty's testimony, as the principal drafter of the legislation. It's also informative to that scope. Once we determine the scope, that will help us address Mr. Motz's motion. A number of those things may fall by the wayside if the scope is narrower or larger, as the case may be.
9 p.m.
Bloc
The Joint Co-Chair Bloc Rhéal Fortin
As I understand Mr. Virani's proposal, at the next committee meeting, we will hear from the two law clerks and Mr. Beatty. Mr. Motz's motion would be considered after that.
Does everyone agree with that?
9 p.m.
Conservative
Glen Motz Conservative Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB
Yes, I agree, if they're available. If they're not available, then let's deal with this motion.
9 p.m.
The Joint Clerk Mr. Paul Cardegna
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I was speaking with my colleague. To temper expectations around the committee table, with essentially fewer than five days before the next meeting, we may be able to get the law clerks in, but I'm not sure we'll be able to get any other witnesses. We can try. It is a short turnaround time, just so members understand. If we're not able to get Mr. Beatty, it may be because of the short turnaround time. We may need to invite him at a later date.
Thank you.
9 p.m.
Liberal
Rachel Bendayan Liberal Outremont, QC
Mr. Chair, I am in agreement, and I understand the logistical constraints that the clerk just mentioned.
I don't see why we would be studying Mr. Motz's motion as a matter of priority should Mr. Beatty not be available for the second portion. There have been other motions circulated. Perhaps the committee would decide at that time which motion is most urgent to discuss in committee business. I'm not sure why we are deciding de facto today what committee business will comprise.
9:05 p.m.
Conservative
9:05 p.m.
Bloc
The Joint Co-Chair Bloc Rhéal Fortin
I see the custodian walking around the back. It's already 9:05 p.m., and we have staff working overtime. I just want to make sure we understand each other.
At the next meeting, we will hear from the two law clerks and Mr. Beatty, if he's available. Otherwise, he will be invited at a later date. Then we'll get into future business. At that point, we could determine which motion we want to study, either Mr. Motz's or another motion on which debate has been adjourned.
Does this work for everyone?
Everyone agrees.
The meeting is adjourned.
