Yes, Mr. White?
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.
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.
The Joint Clerk Mr. Mark Palmer
We're voting on the motion to adjourn debate.
(Motion negatived: nays 7; yeas 4)
Bloc
The Joint Co-Chair Bloc Rhéal Fortin
We will return to Mr. Naqvi's motion, which is the fourth motion, amended by Mr. Motz and Mr. Brock.
Mr. Green, you have the floor.
NDP
The Joint Chair NDP Matthew Green
Thank you.
I'm just referencing, in the wording of this.... It's important, in our work planning, that we get a good lexical order on our scheduling. It still feels like, in reviewing this, that we have the opportunity to pick the dates when these folks will come in. I think it's obvious that we're going to need to see these folks anyway, but what I caution is that we don't put the cart before the horse and have a scenario where we're boxed in on our scheduling. I just want to earmark that the dates are at the selection of our committee.
Liberal
Rachel Bendayan Liberal Outremont, QC
I find myself in the position of vehemently agreeing with Mr. Green. This was the point I was going to make: There is nothing in this motion that specifies when these ministers need to come before the committee. I think the committee will be able to decide. Further to Mr. Motz's intervention earlier, if he wishes to hear from other witnesses before the ministers, I think that's entirely possible.
Given the importance of efficacy in this committee, as we have debated this motion, I request the chair move the committee to a vote.
Bloc
The Joint Co-Chair Bloc Rhéal Fortin
As there is no one else on the list, we can proceed to vote on Mr. Naqvi's motion, amended by Mr. Motz and Mr. Brock.
Mr. Clerk, please proceed with the vote.
Bloc
The Joint Co-Chair Bloc Rhéal Fortin
Is that clear? Do you want us to read the motion again?
I see it's clear to everyone.
Bloc
The Joint Co-Chair Bloc Rhéal Fortin
Everyone is in agreement, so the vote is unanimous.
(Motion agreed to)
Liberal
Arif Virani Liberal Parkdale—High Park, ON
It has already been distributed. It reads as follows:
“That officials from the Department of Public Safety, the Department of Finance and the Department of Justice and from the RCMP, CSIS, CBSA and FINTRAC be invited to appear before this committee at a date chosen by the committee members, to discuss measures invoked on February 14 under the Emergencies Act, for a period of three hours.”
This change reflects our decision to hold three-hour meetings every Tuesday evening.
Senator, Ontario, PSG
I just have an observation. Those are all appropriate, but I think three hours.... It's too many witnesses for too short a time.
Can we break it up in a fashion where we would have two sessions of three hours with half of each? There's a logical separation of the two. I'd be afraid that we wouldn't have enough time for some of the witnesses, and this is going to be important and ground-setting.
Liberal
Arif Virani Liberal Parkdale—High Park, ON
Yes. We could say this:
“to appear before this committee on two dates chosen by the committee members”, etc.
At the end, it would be:
“for a period of three hours each.”
Does that work?
Bloc
The Joint Co-Chair Bloc Rhéal Fortin
Finally, there would be a total of six hours.
Do you agree with that, Mr. Virani?
The Joint Chair NDP Matthew Green
There are a couple of things. This list seems to be a little bit more robust than the previous one in terms of the numbers we have. We may need a third one.
The other thing I picked up on is that these motions are prescriptive. With what we have done in the previous motion and what may have been interpreted in this one, I want clarity, to put it on the record now, whether we have made a de facto decision on the scope by suggesting that the people here are only here to discuss the measures invoked on February 14.
I would like to ask the movers if they would provide clarity on whether or not they have pre-emptively narrowed the scope prior to us seeking the legal interpretation that we agreed, I thought in good spirit, we would wait to receive.
I would like to ask the movers of this motion and the previous one if they would be willing to clarify whether or not they would allow these motions to be interpreted in a manner that would be consistent with the feedback we receive from legal counsel, or if they have prescribed in these motions specificity that would limit the ministers and limit the members of the public safety committees that have been listed to only discussing those things on the 14th.
Liberal
Arif Virani Liberal Parkdale—High Park, ON
Mr. Chair, the answer, of course, is that there's nothing in this motion that would limit the scope. The scope is to be determined by this committee after we hear from the people we want to hear from. Ultimately, the determination as to what is appropriately put to the witnesses who appear before this committee will be made on a case-by-case basis by whoever sits in that chair, based on the relevance to the scope, whatever we determine the scope to be for this committee.
There is no effort, through the back door or the front door, to limit the scope via these motions. These are simply somewhat matter-of-fact motions about groups, entities or ministers whom it is fairly obvious we will need to hear from for the purposes of this parliamentary review committee.
Thank you.
NDP
The Joint Chair NDP Matthew Green
I appreciate that. There have been lots of discussions about backdoor socialism and everything else within the House. I'm glad it hasn't bled over into this committee.
If I could, though.... We have the third potential date. This isn't just going to be two meetings. Is that clear?