Evidence of meeting #28 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 documents.
A video is available from Parliament.
9:20 p.m.
Conservative
9:20 p.m.
Bloc
9:20 p.m.
A voice
[Inaudible--Editor]
9:20 p.m.
Bloc
9:20 p.m.
Liberal
James Maloney Liberal Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON
Thanks, Chair.
We're running out of time for this meeting. I'm okay with the amendments, with the exception of (a) (ii), where it says at the beginning, “an order do issue”, and says at the end, “adoption of this order”. I would suggest that the wording be changed to “a request be made” at the beginning, and that it end with “after the request be made”, instead of “adoption of this order”.
Because the next meeting is in two weeks and we don't want to lose that date, why don't we agree as part of this that the first hour and a half will have the ministers, and the second hour and a half will have the Privy Council and translation people come?
With those two amendments, I think we have an agreement.
9:25 p.m.
Conservative
Glen Motz Conservative Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB
Chair, we agree to having at the next meeting on the 27th the ministers, Privy Council and translation bureau, but not to change the wording of every request we've made from this committee, which is that an order is issued.
I'm sorry. That's not something I'm willing to change at this stage. It's something we've done all along. It's the language we've used in every request we've made. That's the proper language.
We're not requesting it. This committee has the power to order those things. They can refuse and be in contempt, which the DOJ is already.
9:25 p.m.
NDP
The Joint Chair NDP Matthew Green
Do you want to separate it out? I don't want it to kill the whole thing here.
9:25 p.m.
Conservative
Glen Motz Conservative Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB
You can do a subamendment if you want, or just leave it as is. We agree to the 27th, obviously.
9:25 p.m.
Liberal
James Maloney Liberal Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON
I think we have agreement on everything except for that one point.
9:25 p.m.
Conservative
9:25 p.m.
Liberal
James Maloney Liberal Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON
Neither am I.
We can vote on that one provision, if you want.
9:25 p.m.
Conservative
Glen Motz Conservative Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB
Change the word “order” to “request”, basically.
9:25 p.m.
Bloc
The Joint Co-Chair (Mr. Rhéal Éloi Fortin) Bloc Rhéal Fortin
Okay.
At this point, do we have unanimous consent on the text put forward? Do I understand correctly that the only item we will be voting on is Mr. Maloney's amendment?
I'd like to know whether or not we have an agreement on everything else.
Mrs. Romanado, go ahead.
9:25 p.m.
Liberal
Sherry Romanado Liberal Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne, QC
Item (b)(i)(A) needs to be clarified. It reads as follows:
“the Committee invite the following witnesses to appear, separately, for at least one hour each”
We have the PCO as well as the translation bureau. The goal here, based on the agreement right now, if we can, is to have them both come together for an hour and a half. In the next meeting, we would have an hour and a half with the two ministers, and an hour and a half with the Privy Council and the translation bureau.
The way it's worded right now, it doesn't say that. I just want to make sure that it's clear to everybody what we're agreeing to.
9:25 p.m.
Conservative
Glen Motz Conservative Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB
We agreed in our conversations that it would be a 90-minute meeting with the ministers and a 90-minute meeting with the Privy Council and the translation bureau.
9:25 p.m.
Liberal
James Maloney Liberal Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON
Right, but then the word “separately” has to be removed.
9:25 p.m.
Bloc
The Joint Co-Chair (Mr. Rhéal Éloi Fortin) Bloc Rhéal Fortin
Okay.
We agree on that clarification.
Now, some dispute remains over the text of item (a)(ii), specifically whether we're talking about issuing an order or inviting—
9:25 p.m.
Bloc
The Joint Co-Chair (Mr. Rhéal Éloi Fortin) Bloc Rhéal Fortin
Yes, but the question is, to whom are we issuing the order?
If it says, “the Committee issue an order for all legal opinions”, who is that order directed at? Who are we going to invite?
I understand the issue is whether it's an order or an invitation, but who is it directed at?
Go ahead, Senator Harder.
9:25 p.m.
Senator, Ontario, PSG
Colleagues, I would respectfully suggest we use “request” because we have already sought the documents and been told no. My sense is if we use “order”, we're walking down a path that will get into a contest of will.
There may be a desire to take it to the chambers themselves. I would like to avoid that. I think we should have a respectful relationship with the ministers when they come. We should ask for it and see what they say.
I would support “request”.