Evidence of meeting #3 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 inquiry.
A video is available from Parliament.
9:20 p.m.
Conservative
Glen Motz Conservative Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB
I just want to wrap up about our next session and work issues.
9:20 p.m.
NDP
The Joint Chair NDP Matthew Green
We're going to get to that. I just wanted to make sure Mr. Beatty was sent off with the words he certainly deserves here and to recognize the value of the other witnesses.
At this point, in the last remaining minutes of this committee, it would be good for us to contemplate a few things.
We have analysts who have been listening intently to the work at hand. There is, I think, a need for us, understanding that we don't have witnesses currently applied for the next meeting, to submit our witness lists, hopefully by no later than Thursday at noon, which would then allow our analysts to provide us a draft working plan for contemplation in our next meeting, on Tuesday.
I can certainly take some perspectives around the table. We have Mr. Motz, followed by Mr. Virani.
Go ahead, Mr. Motz.
9:20 p.m.
Conservative
Glen Motz Conservative Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB
Thank you, Chair.
Let's not get ahead of ourselves. We may not want to suggest witnesses just yet. We determined at the last meeting that we would do this particular meeting to develop scope and help us with some of the mandate. We had great testimony today from the law clerks from both houses, and from Mr. Beatty.
May I suggest that at our next meeting we return to committee business? We have a number of motions we haven't finished yet. We haven't finalized a number of outstanding things. We need to determine our scope completely so we can wrap it up here. Then we can start working on our witness lists.
I would suggest that maybe we have a witness list available for next Tuesday's meeting. Then, at Tuesday's meeting, we have a number of substantive issues to go through. I think we need to take that time so that our committee is properly constituted, we know exactly what we're going to do and how we're going to do it, and we haven't left anything out, so that the witnesses we have, moving forward, are in a logical process, and we're using their testimony because we know exactly the direction we want to go in.
That would be my submission.
9:25 p.m.
NDP
9:25 p.m.
Liberal
Arif Virani Liberal Parkdale—High Park, ON
I'm just tangled up in all this stuff.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. Thank you for policing yourself so judiciously. It was quite remarkable. Alistair and I both commented on that.
In terms of this, taking a cue from Mr. Beatty, I'm absolutely in agreement with Mr. Motz—no partisanship here. I don't think we can determine things like the witness lists until we've determined our scope, our mandate and our terms of reference. Call it what you want, but I think we need to figure out what we're looking at. Then we feed in the witnesses, the kinds of witnesses we want based on an agreement as to what we're looking at as a committee.
I think committee business makes eminent sense to deal with at the next meeting. In our back pocket—I would agree with Mr. Motz—we should have a general sense of the types of witnesses we'd like to have. If we get through the committee business and are able to hammer out the terms of reference, great. Then we can start working on proposing witnesses.
9:25 p.m.
Liberal
Rachel Bendayan Liberal Outremont, QC
I have a suggestion. I, myself, am not necessarily convinced that this is the best approach, but perhaps an hour and a half will be enough to discuss the motions, come up with a workplan and decide on how we're going to proceed.
At the last meeting, we had already agreed on a motion to have the ministers appear before the committee. I think everyone was in favour of that.
Either way, I'm just throwing out the idea. We could spend the first hour and a half discussing the motions and the second part of the meeting, hearing from witnesses.
9:25 p.m.
NDP
The Joint Chair NDP Matthew Green
Thank you for that. I'll put myself on the list to be able to provide my respective remarks to that.
I feel that we may fall into the same problem, in that if we don't have the appropriate scope, then the questions may be limited to the ministers. While I think there's a general intention for all of us to get about the business and I don't think anybody is trying to slow down the business, I think that for me, getting the terms of reference right would make sense. It certainly would give much more support to the joint chairs.
I suggest that it would actually be more beneficial to use that time accordingly. I say this with the utmost tender care and love in my heart for everybody around the table. If we were to have an hour and a half of those discussions, or more if there were more time available—provided we not find ourselves in unnecessary filibusters or things of that nature, where we come to an impasse—we could use that time judiciously to get to the framing of the scope. I'm just going to put that out there.
I think we've heard some very compelling testimony today. I'm also not naive enough to think that we're not all going to go away with different opinions on what we've heard. That being said, it may be wise for us to take Tuesday simply as a committee business day. If it means we finish a bit early and then have our witnesses and get prepared, we could do that in the next weeks after that. I think there's also an opportunity for us to give consideration at some time to the frequency with which we sit in order to catch up on whatever business might be made available, given our constituency weeks and other things.
We have Senator Harder, and then we'll come back to Mr. Motz.
9:25 p.m.
Senator, Ontario, PSG
Thank you, Chair.
I would concur with what you've just said, as well as what Mr. Motz and Mr. Virani have said. I would suggest that we meet next week as the coordinating committee of this committee, and therefore do this in camera.
9:25 p.m.
Conservative
Glen Motz Conservative Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB
Thank you, Chair.
I wouldn't disagree. I think that's appropriate.
On what we did last meeting with our ministers, we agreed on the division of how they should come, but we didn't set a date. With that in mind, I think we can arrive at a consensus around the table that we would probably be better served in the long term on this committee if we did just that: committee business next week in camera to finish off the motions we have to deal with.
9:30 p.m.
Liberal
Rachel Bendayan Liberal Outremont, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'm hearing consensus around a number of issues.
The committee business that we will engage in on Tuesday will be in camera. I agree with that proposal from my colleagues.
I'm also hearing that perhaps we should have witnesses at a subsequent meeting. I leave it with you, Mr. Green, in talking about the importance of moving along rapidly. I would perhaps ask the clerk to verify if it would be possible to meet twice next week.
I would suggest that given that we would like witnesses to appear in person, perhaps meeting twice next week would avoid having to meet in a constituency week, during which it would probably be difficult to hear directly from witnesses in person. I know my colleagues opposite care quite a great deal about that.
9:30 p.m.
NDP
The Joint Chair NDP Matthew Green
Just to be clear, Ms. Bendayan, there was a question though you to the clerk. There will have to be some reflection on that.
I am also on the list, and then I'll go to Mr. Motz.
I just want to be clear that I didn't say “rapidly”. I said “judiciously”. Those are different things.
The other thing I want to go on the record to state is that when we talk about accountability and transparency, while I appreciate how the theatre and the spectacle of politics are very different in camera than they are in public.... I just want to go on the record and state right now that I'm actually against going in camera for the discussion. I think there will be Canadians following along quite closely. Unless absolutely necessary, it's just my personal position that we will carry on all business in public view so as not to further add to any kind of conspiratorial rhetoric that's already floating around.
We have Mr. Motz and then Senator White.
9:30 p.m.
Conservative
Glen Motz Conservative Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB
Thank you, Chair.
I wish to withdraw my recommendation for in camera. I remember back to when we first started talking about our parameters around this meeting and the notices of motion. We talked about being in camera. We talked about that being potentially for those sensitive witnesses and the sensitive documents that we might have to review.
Being that we've already done two public meetings dealing with committee business, I would think that our Tuesday meeting should be public and not in camera, and then we reserve the sanctity of in camera for the sensitivities that we know we're going to deal with down the road.
9:30 p.m.
Senator, Ontario, CSG
Thank you very much. I appreciate the comments of all.
Because we don't have a steering committee, which would normally operate in camera and allow us to deal with committee business, my argument is that if we're going to act as we are, as a steering committee of the whole, then we ought to be holding some of this business in camera to allow us to get through it quickly. I think we would actually finish it in one meeting.
I do not believe we'll finish it in one meeting if we have the glare of the lights and the cameras on us. I would rather see us go in camera. If we have to, let's have a vote on it now to decide.
9:30 p.m.
NDP
The Joint Chair NDP Matthew Green
Thank you, Senator White.
I would share with you that the composition of the committee of the whole was a routine motion that was adopted by this committee in our first meeting. There were no parameters around what would be in and out of camera at that time. It would have been a good consideration.
If what I'm hearing from you is that you're putting a motion on the floor—
9:30 p.m.
NDP
The Joint Chair NDP Matthew Green
Okay. If you would, please concisely state your motion, so that we can contemplate it for a vote.
9:30 p.m.
Senator, Ontario, CSG
I move that the next meeting, April 5, be held in camera for its entirety.
9:30 p.m.
Voices
Question.
9:30 p.m.
NDP