Evidence of meeting #21 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 definition.
A video is available from Parliament.
8:55 p.m.
The Joint Chair Hon. Gwen Boniface
Could I just ask the mover for clarification, if he's willing, on (c) about the final report? What are you distinguishing? I'm trying to understand why that's important.
8:55 p.m.
NDP
The Joint Chair NDP Matthew Green
While that's being discussed, for the consideration of the committee, I think it's important to note that the original motion proposed, I believe, that we have about six meetings, three hours per meeting.
8:55 p.m.
Conservative
Glen Motz Conservative Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB
After we go home.... That's the issue. It's due on February 20.
9 p.m.
Conservative
9 p.m.
Conservative
Larry Brock Conservative Brantford—Brant, ON
Yes, I'm ready. Thank you, Chair.
To answer Senator Boniface's question, the rationale behind that amendment is contemplating the other motion that has yet to be tabled by my colleague Mr. Motz with respect to the release of the legal opinions. If that motion is passed, it could result in an interim report before the final report.
I don't want to foreclose the possibility that there could be a further report before we issue that final report. That was the rationale.
9 p.m.
NDP
The Joint Chair NDP Matthew Green
I see MP Virani.
I'll then look to put myself on the list and pass the chair to Senator Boniface.
9 p.m.
Liberal
Arif Virani Liberal Parkdale—High Park, ON
With respect to what Mr. Brock just raised, I would say that's a bit speculative in terms of how we should address this motion, based on future motions that may or may not come to pass.
The second piece I would raise is that March 31 is still five weeks after the tabling of the Rouleau commission report in Parliament. There's nothing that requires us to sit only once per week, so if there's a concern about the timing of sittings, that can be addressed through sitting more than once per week. The committee is the master of its own destiny in that regard.
I'd also put out there that we should not conflate the scope of what Justice Rouleau has been asked and what we've been asked. Our own terms of reference and the motion that was passed in the House and in the Senate are technically different entities. That's important to keep in mind, because I think the impression was given that we need to be responding to what may be a 300- or 400-page report by Justice Rouleau.
Thank you.
9 p.m.
NDP
The Joint Chair NDP Matthew Green
Senator Boniface, please take the chair, for my own intervention.
I think I have stated that I have a keen interest and that I am willing to accept whatever findings come from the Rouleau commission, and I hope that we will use that in our contemplation of the report. I recognize the time crunch. I also recognize the remedy that has just been put forward that we could contemplate using constituency weeks or requesting additional time. As it's stated right now, I'm not sure that having three meetings after the final report would be enough. I think we would logistically look to having to spend more time if we wanted that deadline.
Having said that, I also respect the notion that if new information were to come to this committee, we would be able to contemplate that information in an open forum by calling a meeting that includes committee business. That's if we were to contemplate documents that were received or what have you.
To this point, I think we're doing pretty well on this motion, and I'm hoping that we can continue to iron out a pathway forward here. However, as it stands now, I am in support of this, recognizing that there could be a commitment to increase the frequency of our meetings in order to have the report, as well as provide an open forum for which information can be contemplated in public.
I'll acknowledge the fact that any time we're in camera, at the passing of a motion, we can move to go out of camera and into the public domain again. One doesn't preclude the other, at least in my understanding.
As far as interim reports go, I'll say that what I'm not on for are motions that contain a conclusion by any party of this committee that we would then spend hours on in a filibuster, contemplating it in a very public and partisan way. I'm hopeful that any reports that come do so in a way that respects the precedent that is set in our other committees, that we build the report together and that we submit it as a committee.
Those are my comments.
Senator Boniface, I'll take the chair back and I'll recognize Senator Harder.
9 p.m.
Senator, Ontario, PSG
Very briefly, Chair, I share your observations of the intentions behind this. Obviously, as we go forward, we may or may not review that. However, I think it's important for us to be expeditious, recognizing that by the time we report, even with this date, it will have been over a year.
9 p.m.
Bloc
The Joint Chair Bloc Rhéal Fortin
I listen to our debates and I understand all the participants' concerns. I don't know whether I should propose it now or later, but could we not instead agree to reject the whole thing?
Between March 31 and June 23, we could meet on May 15 or May 30, for example. We actually considered the possibility earlier of meeting more often, as our colleague Mr. Virani suggests, but we realized that it was not possible, there being no clerks, interpreters and rooms available.
You will recall that at the beginning of the fall, we had asked to meet two days a week. At that time, the answer was that it was not possible and we had to stick to one day a week.
We also cannot imagine that a miracle is going to happen and we will be meeting two or three days a week. We will have to cope with one day a week. However, a deadline of March 31 is definitely a bit short. I think Senator Harder will agree with me that that deadline does not leave us a lot of time for discussion.
Without waiting until June 23, is there a way to agree on May 15 or 30? I do want us to vote, but if we could reach an informal agreement on a date, it might facilitate things.
9:05 p.m.
NDP
The Joint Chair NDP Matthew Green
I think we've heard that rationale.
We will recognize Ms. Bendayan.
9:05 p.m.
Liberal
Rachel Bendayan Liberal Outremont, QC
Yes, I would just like to hear what the clerk has to say, because I don't recall that it was impossible to find other time slots for other meetings. Is it true and definite that we can't find other dates in 2023?
However, I think it is fairly impossible to confirm it today.
9:05 p.m.
NDP
The Joint Chair NDP Matthew Green
I don't want to put the clerk in the position of having to have a crystal ball, but I would say this. I'll take the chair's prerogative to say that if we are in a scenario where we are denied, then I would ask the indulgence of this committee that we revisit an extension on the dates.
I think we're getting to a place where we understand where we need to be with this committee. We're doing really good work. Would that suffice, if we came to a place where...? Actually, the question is, in a parliamentarians' agreement, would it suffice that if we got to a place where that request was denied, at that time you would put that motion to have it extended?
Okay. You don't have to comment. You're not compelled to speak.
Senator Harder, go ahead.
December 8th, 2022 / 9:05 p.m.
Senator, Ontario, PSG
Chair, in the spirit in which I intervened earlier, I'd be happy in that circumstance to have a discussion in committee as to whether it would be appropriate—and, if so, for how long—but let's get going on our work.
9:05 p.m.
Conservative
Glen Motz Conservative Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB
Our committee coordinators have indicated that we do not yet have a calendar for 2023 for committees, and we do not have any indication that there will be more resources available than there are now. We can guess that there might be, but what committees are going to be cancelled? Night sittings might be scheduled as they are.... What impact will that have?
Even if we go to...it doesn't have to be to the end of May, but something reasonable, something in the middle. March 31 is impossible, and maybe the end of June is too far away. Maybe we can meet somewhere in the middle, like May 19 or whatever. We need to be reasonable in the dates we have, because I don't see us getting things done in three meetings. Even if we had an extra meeting a week for three hours, I still don't think that would be enough.
9:05 p.m.
Liberal
Arif Virani Liberal Parkdale—High Park, ON
For everyone's appreciation, I believe that the pressures on scheduling meetings arise during sitting weeks, but they don't arise at all during non-sitting weeks. There are at least three non-sitting weeks. There are two non-sitting weeks in February and at least one in March, so I presume that there would be added flexibility at that point in time for scheduling committee time.
9:05 p.m.
NDP
The Joint Chair NDP Matthew Green
I will note that we have tried that in the past. Organizing members of Parliament, particularly during constituency weeks, is a difficult task at the best of times.
We do have an amendment. It is being contemplated. We've had lots of different interventions on the amendment. Is it the committee's will that we proceed to a vote on the amendment, or are there other interventions that might provide some amicable middle ground?
Given that we've exhausted the list, we will proceed to the vote.
Can you please read the amendment again?
9:10 p.m.
Conservative
Larry Brock Conservative Brantford—Brant, ON
Yes, it's (b) in paragraph (c) by adding “final” before “report”, and (c) in paragraph (d) by replacing “March 31” with “June 23”.