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.
9:10 p.m.
NDP
The Joint Chair NDP Matthew Green
The question is on the amendment as put.
(Amendment negatived: nays 6; yeas 4 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
9:10 p.m.
Conservative
Glen Motz Conservative Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
If you don't succeed a couple of times, you have to try a third time.
How about this? It's an amendment adding, at the end of paragraph (a), the following: “provided that the joint clerks invite each individual organization listed on the analysts' work plan, dated May 11, 2022, who have not appeared before the committee to submit a brief to the committee for its consideration, with briefs encouraged to be provided to the joint clerks within one month. The joint clerks shall arrange for any briefs provided to be translated, circulated to the committee members and published on the committee's website.”
9:10 p.m.
NDP
The Joint Chair NDP Matthew Green
You heard the amendment. Do we have any interventions on the amendment?
Ms. Bendayan, the floor is yours.
9:10 p.m.
Liberal
Rachel Bendayan Liberal Outremont, QC
Mr. Chair, I was simply going to say that the witnesses we have heard to date have all been examined. We were able to ask them questions.
I believe there are fundamental principles to be observed in a committee's work and treating all witnesses the same way is one of them. I believe it is profoundly unfair to accept written testimony without having the opportunity to ask questions and to see and hear the witnesses. I think that what my colleagues are doing is essentially stretching the study out for another year. Once those documents have been presented and that written testimony has been given, they are surely going to want to see those witnesses so they can question them.
I think they are doing indirectly what can't be done directly by way of the other amendments.
9:10 p.m.
Conservative
Larry Brock Conservative Brantford—Brant, ON
With all due respect to my Liberal colleague, she presupposes incorrectly. What we are trying to do.... I listened very carefully to Senator Harder's support with respect to his motion, and I heard him very clearly say this does not potentially close the door on hearing from further witnesses. That is an opinion not clearly stated within the motion itself.
I mean no disrespect to Senator Harder, but unless it's actually there and we vote and agree on it, we may not get consensus to call further witnesses. What this does.... I'm quite shocked that my colleague from the Liberal side would take exception to this, because what we're trying to do is expedite the process. We all agreed the list we had on our work plan was quite unmanageable in terms of where we are right now, almost a year into this process.
We're trying to expedite those witnesses who are not that contentious by allowing them to file their reports. We still have further academics on that work plan. Those academics, most surely, would have a prepared statement, or would be in a position to prepare a written statement.
This is all about efficiency. It's not about complicating things. It gives specific impact to Senator Harder's proposal, which we have yet to vote on.
9:15 p.m.
NDP
The Joint Chair NDP Matthew Green
I don't know. I always feel like that's a bit abusive, as a chair, so I'll recognize you and wait.
9:15 p.m.
Liberal
Arif Virani Liberal Parkdale—High Park, ON
I would just say that, in terms of being efficient, the most efficient thing we probably did was several months ago when we said we would take holus-bolus—I think that's probably the right expression—everything that was before the Rouleau inquiry and incorporate it as evidence in this proceeding. That provides us with a tremendous level of efficiency.
I note that the vast majority, if not every single bit, of that evidence has been tested by cross-examination. As we saw, the Prime Minister was questioned by about nine different counsel when he appeared on that Friday a couple of weeks ago.
The utility of cross-examination, to me, was never more critical than when we had a witness appear here who had to be invited a second time and, thankfully, arrived. This is my personal perspective, but the testimony from the individual from GiveSendGo, in terms of his response to questioning, really demonstrated a lack of credibility in terms of what he was presenting. I think that's informative for all the members of the committee in terms of how we deliberate and what kinds of recommendations we develop.
The utility of cross-examination is actually quite vital. The only thing we're incorporating by reference has already been tested via cross-examination in that other forum before Justice Rouleau, so I think the point is well put by Ms. Bendayan.
9:15 p.m.
NDP
The Joint Chair NDP Matthew Green
I'll pass the chair over to Senator Boniface.
It's my perspective that there's a higher standard of care that we, as parliamentarians in this committee, have in navigating this review and in contemplating the public consultation process. I'm actually in support of taking this. I take Senator Harder at his word when he says that, if there is a bombshell or if there's a significant departure, that would require us to have greater scrutiny or the demand for a cross-examination on contentious briefings. It needs to be clear. Briefings, procedurally, are put on a footing with testimony as it relates to the analysts' notes.
I will be supporting this motion for those reasons. I take it in good faith that if we had continued down our work plan path, which we had agreed on at one time, we would have invariably seen those witnesses.
I'm going to test the goodwill. Should this motion pass, I would look to the Conservatives to support us on the main—although sometimes I've seen committees where that doesn't happen—in the spirit of trying to move this thing along. For those reasons, I'll be supporting the amendment to have the briefings be contemplated.
I will also go on the record to say that if there are material departures from the committee's consensus around the report, I would also support calling back a witness who has presented a briefing that requires a little bit more cross-examination and scrutiny.
I'll take the chair back and then recognize Senator Boniface.
9:15 p.m.
The Joint Chair Hon. Gwen Boniface
For the mover of the amendment, I'm wondering whether it is essential to seek it from everybody or whether we could prioritize the witnesses who have not appeared before the commission. Some of the people you would send to have already appeared before the commission, I think. I'm just wondering if you would give.... Perhaps the joint chairs could take a look at that and then sort those lists in a way.
9:15 p.m.
Conservative
9:15 p.m.
The Joint Chair Hon. Gwen Boniface
They can choose not to respond. Perhaps that's the way to leave it. I just think it's confusing for people on the other end who are receiving the information.
9:15 p.m.
Conservative
Glen Motz Conservative Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB
I'm sorry. I may not have been clear when I read the motion, but this is for witnesses who have not yet appeared, not for those who have.
9:20 p.m.
Conservative
9:20 p.m.
The Joint Chair Hon. Gwen Boniface
Within the list—and because I don't have the list in front of me, I don't know—there may be, and I suspect there are, people who have already appeared before the Rouleau commission, in which case we already have their evidence. I just think that if I'm on the receiving end of “we want more information” when I've already testified under oath, it doesn't make sense to me.
9:20 p.m.
Conservative
Glen Motz Conservative Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB
I would certainly agree to that, absolutely, and I would also suggest that the clerks limit the amount of information we receive. I mean, we don't want 30 pages, but it should be like a five-page brief. If they can't say it to us in five pages, what more can they say? It would be something along those lines: that we trim it down a bit and make it reasonable and manageable.
9:20 p.m.
The Joint Chair Mr. Matthew Green
Do we have any other interventions on the proposed amendment?
9:20 p.m.
Conservative
9:20 p.m.
Senator, Ontario, PSG
Just to take the suspense out, Mr. Chair, I will, in the spirit of your intervention, vote for the motion, living in the same hope as you do.
9:20 p.m.
NDP
The Joint Chair NDP Matthew Green
Do we have consensus, or do you want to go to a vote? Do you want it on division or are we going to do the whole thing here?