Declaration of Emergency Committee on March 24th, 2022

[Yasir Naqvi, Liberal, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Chair, I would like to put forward another motion. The motion reads, “That the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance, the President of the Queen’s Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Emergency Preparedness, the Minister of Public Safety, and the Minister of Justice be invited to appear before this committee at a date chosen by the committee members and subject to their availabilities to discuss measures invoked on February 5 to 14, 2022, under the Emergencies Act, for a period of two hours.”

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

Mr. Motz, you have the floor.

Then we will hear from Mr. Green and Mr. Harder.

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant, ON]

You called me Mr. Motz, but that's okay.

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

I'm sorry, Mr. Brock.

You have the floor.

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

I have a friendly amendment to propose with respect to Mr. Naqvi's motion on the table. It is after the words, “Minister of Justice be invited to appear before this committee”. The amendment is “at dates”—dates—“chosen by the committee members and subject to their availabilities to discuss measures invoked on February 5 to 14, 2022, under the Emergencies Act, for a period of two hours”, and the friendly amendment being sought is the word “each”.

Two friendly amendments are being sought: the word “dates” and the word “each”.

Thank you.

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

The people on the list I had wanted to speak to the main motion.

Does anyone want to speak to the amendment proposed by Mr. Brock?

Mr. Green, you have the floor.

[The Joint Chair, NDP, Matthew Green]

Thank you very much.

If I recall, my friend Madam Bendayan suggested that an hour and a half would be required for an individual witness, and I feel that this keeps in that spirit. We certainly wouldn't want to have a scenario where all these ministers were in for one date, so I think that was a very appropriate amendment, and I support it.

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

Mr. Clerk, I would like a procedural clarification. With regard to the suggestion to have each witness for an hour and a half rather than two hours, is that a subamendment to the amendment?

[The Joint Chair, NDP, Matthew Green]

No, it's not an amendment. I was just referencing it for clarity. My apologies.

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

All right. You're telling us what you would have liked, but you're not making it a motion.

[The Joint Chair, NDP, Matthew Green]

I will speak no further—

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

I understand.

Does anyone else want to speak?

Mr. Virani, you have the floor.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would like to highlight three things.

First, we are preparing the list of witnesses. Those who have been mentioned will, of course, be invited.

It's fairly evident or obvious that you would invite the ministers.

Apropos to what Mr. Brock has suggested, I would raise a couple of points.

One is that there is some utility in having ministers in the room at the same time, and I say that only because sometimes it can be frustrating. I say this as a guy who has been frustrated in court at times when you don't have the right person in the witness box. You ask them a question, and they defer to, “Well, that's not under my knowledge; that's in the knowledge of person X”, so it would be useful to have person X or minister X in the room at the same time so that people aren't shifting responsibility for answering a certain question.

Just on crude mathematics, and, again, math is not the forte of most lawyers, so work with me here, but Mr. Brock has suggested dates and for two hours each. Hypothetically, if you had each minister on one of those dates, you might have four meetings of two hours, and that's eight hours. The original contemplation was two hours in total.

Perhaps there might be a compromise that could be achievable where, since we're now in the world of three-hour meetings, instead of a total of eight hours, we have a total of six hours with two three-hour meetings with all of the ministers present. Maybe in the committee's infinite wisdom, you might want two ministers for one of the meetings and two ministers for one of the other meetings.

I just put that on the floor as a suggestion.

Thank you.

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

Are you moving an amendment, Mr. Virani?

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

This is a general amendment, which I have summarized without using the specific words. We can say

“at dates chosen”

and specify that it is for a three-hour period.

It's important that it be three hours, as we've already taken three hours for the other meeting.

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

As I understand it, we're going to vote on the proposal that was just made, the proposal to add an “s” to the word “date” and to add the word “each” after the words “two hours”". Then we will consider Mr. Virani's amendment.

[Claude Carignan]

Excuse me, Mr. Chair.

If I may, I would like to speak.

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

Senator Carignan, you have the floor.

[Claude Carignan]

Under the rules that we adopted last week with respect to speaking turns, I don't want us to get to the end of the hour and a half and have to cut short the second round of questions from senators.

In the normal scenario of testimony that is kept to a certain time frame, I wonder if this period will be enough and if senators will be able to have a second turn if everyone asks questions.

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

For the time being, a two-hour period for each of the witnesses is scheduled, according to the fourth motion under consideration.

The amendment provides for a two-hour period for each one.

[Claude Carignan]

Two hours for each is fine with me.

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

So I move that we vote on this amendment.

Ms. Bendayan, you have the floor.

[Rachel Bendayan, Liberal, Outremont, QC]

I would like to ask the clerk to clarify what the amendment is before we vote on what is being proposed.

[The Joint Clerk, Mr. Paul Cardegna]

What I understand from Mr. Brock's amendment is that

the words “a date” be replaced with “dates”, and then, after the words “two hours”, the word “each” is added.

[Rachel Bendayan, Liberal, Outremont, QC]

Each minister would appear for a period of two hours. Is that the amendment being proposed by Mr. Brock?