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.
Conservative
Glen Motz Conservative Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB
Yes, but we have an amendment as well. We would like to add more people to that.
NDP
The Joint Chair NDP Matthew Green
I still have the floor. If I could just put the question, have we determined how many dates there are going to be?
Again, this is just a date. I hope we would be able to rectify this in the same way we did the last one, using the same logic.
Bloc
The Joint Co-Chair Bloc Rhéal Fortin
What is proposed is two three-hour meetings, for a total of six hours.
Is that correct?
Bloc
The Joint Co-Chair Bloc Rhéal Fortin
So it's two days. Perhaps an “s” should be added to the word “date”, but it doesn't matter.
NDP
The Joint Chair NDP Matthew Green
Thank you for that.
I would suggest that, with the Department of Public Safety, the Department of Finance, the Department of Justice, the RCMP, CSIS, CBSA and FINTRAC, it would likely be a three-day study. We would have to provide the time there for the three days.
I would move an amendment that we add a day for consideration, just so we're not overburdened.
This three-hour meeting at the end of this day has been a long one. I'm just contemplating future evening meetings for three hours. I want to make sure that we have the ability to explore this stuff in a meaningful way.
Bloc
The Joint Co-Chair Bloc Rhéal Fortin
That would be three meetings of three hours each over three days, for a total of nine hours.
Is that the meaning of your amendment, Mr. Green? Is that what you are proposing?
Bloc
Conservative
Larry Brock Conservative Brantford—Brant, ON
I also have a friendly amendment for consideration with respect to this particular motion.
Senator, Québec (Mille Isles), C
Mr. Chair, I also asked for the floor.
Bloc
The Joint Co-Chair Bloc Rhéal Fortin
I'm going to give you the floor, Senator Carignan, but I would remind you that Mr. Green has proposed an amendment and that, as I understand it, we should vote on this amendment before we hear another amendment, unless there is unanimous consent.
If there isn't unanimous consent on the proposed amendment, we will have to vote on the proposal.
Is that what you wanted to speak to, Senator Carignan?
Senator, Québec (Mille Isles), C
I want to speak to the amendment, if I may.
Senator, Québec (Mille Isles), C
I was looking at both the main proposal and the amendment, and I was putting it in the context of having already heard from ministers. We are currently planning to hear from officials and law enforcement agencies for several days.
When are we going to hear from the advocacy organizations or the banks that had to implement these measures and the people affected by the situation and hear about the various problems they had?
In fact, I am concerned that the views are not balanced. I would remind you that we were trying to strike a balance between the different points of view of the witnesses. It seems to me that our choice of witnesses is leaning heavily in one same direction. I'm not sure we're going to be able to get the balance right in subsequent meetings.
I'm a little concerned that we're a little too quick to put together our witness list from government agencies or law enforcement agencies for several days in a row. It seems to me that maybe we should slow down. We could hear from ministers and then bring in witnesses with different points of view.
Bloc
The Joint Co-Chair Bloc Rhéal Fortin
Next up, we have Mr. Harder and Mr. Green.
Further to Senator Carignan's comments, I would like to clarify that, as I understand it, we aren't in the process of establishing the order for the witnesses to appear, but rather saying that we will have to hear from these witnesses at some point.
No proposal has been made as to the order of witnesses.
Senator, Québec (Mille Isles), C
I'm more comfortable if the discussions are done that way. However, we'll have to think about interspersing witnesses who were affected by the events.
Bloc
Senator, Ontario, PSG
I have some quick points.
First of all, I think the witnesses we're hoping to call are for our baseline, foundational understanding.
Second, in the hopes that we can bridge the difference here, can we at least start with two sessions of three hours and then determine, at the end of that, whether we need more? My fear is that we're being too prescriptive at the start. Let's open it up, and in good faith advance. If we need to call witnesses back for an additional period of time, we should do so. But we're fighting over whether or not to get started, and I think we should start.
Bloc
The Joint Co-Chair Bloc Rhéal Fortin
Mr. Green, you have the floor.
Then, it will be Mr. Motz's turn.
NDP
The Joint Chair NDP Matthew Green
I would suggest, with respect to my colleague from the Senate, that there are some very logical pairings here. It would appear to me that the Department of Public Safety and the Department of Justice would make for a good theme day. It would appear to me that the Department of Finance and FINTRAC would make for a good theme day, and the RCMP, CSIS and CBSA would make for a third good theme day. That was the rationale. It was in keeping with the line that it was baseline. I just don't want to be in a scenario where we have a mishmash of guests who aren't necessarily in keeping with appropriate themes. It wasn't to be obstructionist, but just to provide logic to the order and the work plan.
Thank you.
Conservative
Glen Motz Conservative Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB
Thank you, Chair.
We have potentially nine witnesses here, because we're looking at the Parliamentary Protective Service and the Sergeant-at-Arms being added to this list as well. I think it's necessary. I would agree with Mr. Green that there's no way we can possibly go through this.... Yes, Mr. Harder, we can ask witnesses to come back, but that never works as well as interviewing them as witnesses at the front end.
There may be things that we have to clarify down the road, but it would behoove us to ensure that we allow ourselves enough time. There is no race to get this done. We have to be prudent with our time, but let's do it right the first time. Let's allow for the amount of time we need. We allowed 1.5 hours for the four from before. There's no reason we can't pair a couple of these together and allow, with 1.5 hours, for probably nine to 12 hours. I would say we probably need 12 hours, four meetings, to go through just this list, along with some other ones that we should probably add to it that are missing from this. I would say there's no way we're ever going to get a chance....
As Senator Carignan mentioned before, you can't possibly get through witnesses in a rush like this. This speaks to Mr. Green's point, when we started our meeting, that from the public's perception of what we're doing, this can't be seen to be done in a way that is fast-tracked and non-transparent. We have to do our due diligence up front.
