Evidence of meeting #30 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.
8 p.m.
The Joint Chair Hon. Gwen Boniface
It's the amended version.
I see that everybody is giving me a thumbs-up on the screen.
(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(Motion as amended agreed to)
8 p.m.
The Joint Chair Hon. Gwen Boniface
I also want to get agreement from you, if I may—because I've had discussions with the analysts—to update the report to take into consideration the Federal Court decision and the government response to it. That will be something we can review, but they can at least start doing that update since it's been some time since the body of the report has been updated. Does everybody agree with that? That would also give us something more to look at and comment on, which is not relevant to the materials we're waiting for.
Go ahead, Senator Carignan.
8 p.m.
sénateur, Québec (Mille Isles), C
I have a third point.
Should we ask the analysts to produce a report to be submitted to the clerks of the House and the Senate? Should we prepare a draft report explaining the stages of our work and the reasons why our work was suspended for almost a year? That is actually Mr. Fortin's suggestion.
8 p.m.
The Joint Chair Hon. Gwen Boniface
You're going back to Senator Fortin's comments—I mean Mr. Fortin.
8 p.m.
sénateur, Québec (Mille Isles), C
I'm saying to Mr. Fortin that I think that's a really good idea.
April 30th, 2024 / 8 p.m.
The Joint Chair Hon. Gwen Boniface
Mr. Fortin, I called you a senator. I apologize.
8 p.m.
The Joint Chair Hon. Gwen Boniface
Are there comments on an interim report?
Senator Harder, go ahead.
8 p.m.
Senator, Ontario, PSG
I would oppose an interim report. I think we should just get it done.
8 p.m.
NDP
The Joint Chair NDP Matthew Green
In our deliberations, I think contemplating a brief report is more of an administrative function than it is a big debate. It would just be a statement of facts—an explainer, if you will—as to why we weren't able to report back.
As a co-chair, I feel a bit of a responsibility, so I do support Mr. Fortin's and Mr. Carignan's suggestion. I just hope that it's not something that requires a whole bunch of debate. Perhaps it would be best drafted by the co-chairs, signed off on and then presented to our committee while we're doing our draft report, perhaps on the 21st or in the first session after that.
I would be fine to support that. It would just be a very brief statement of fact about where we're at.
8 p.m.
Bloc
The Joint Chair (Mr. Rhéal Éloi Fortin) Bloc Rhéal Fortin
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I agree with what Mr. Green has just proposed, that we prepare the report for May 21.
As I said earlier, it's not a matter of writing a long report with components we disagree on. I'm just proposing that the analysts prepare a four or five-line progress report to say where things currently stand.
The report could say that we started work on such and such a date, that we suspended work on such and such a date while waiting for the translation of documents and that we are resuming our work.
It's just a matter of preparing a progress report. I trust the analysts to do so in a non-partisan manner. Out of respect for our colleagues in the House of Commons and the Senate, I think we need to give them an update.
8 p.m.
Liberal
James Maloney Liberal Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON
I agree with Senator Harder. We don't need to do an interim report. If we're talking about something that's five pages long, I anticipate it will take us two meetings to agree on the language, which eats into what we're trying to accomplish here.
What I would suggest is that we defer this notion of an interim report until sometime in June, after we've started the report process, and see if it's worth doing and what it might look like then. We don't need to talk about it any further tonight.
8 p.m.
The Joint Chair Hon. Gwen Boniface
Are there any other comments?
We will ask the analysts to start doing the amendment of the report to add the new information. If I'm clear, we will reconvene on May 21 and we'll have further discussions on both the interpretation issues and the draft report. The next meeting will be in camera.
Is there any—
8:05 p.m.
sénateur, Québec (Mille Isles), C
Can we plan to hold part of the meeting in public and the other part—
8:05 p.m.
The Joint Chair Hon. Gwen Boniface
I'm sorry, Senator Carignan, but for some reason my mic didn't shut off, so I didn't catch the first part of what you said.
8:05 p.m.
sénateur, Québec (Mille Isles), C
You're proposing that the entire meeting be held in camera. I propose instead that the part of the meeting devoted to working on and drafting the report be held in camera, but not the part when we identify the relevant evidence we want to have translated.
We don't need to meet in camera for that part, since we won't be drafting the report.
8:05 p.m.
The Joint Chair Hon. Gwen Boniface
Can I suggest we decide that at the next meeting, on May 21, when we know what it is we're discussing?
8:05 p.m.
Bloc
The Joint Chair (Mr. Rhéal Éloi Fortin) Bloc Rhéal Fortin
I just wanted to clarify something.
Mr. Maloney mentioned a five or six-page report. I was talking more about a five or six-line report. I just proposed a progress report. When I made that proposal, I saw that Senator Carignan was in agreement. I understand that Mr. Maloney and Senator Harder, I believe, were not. What are we going to do? Will we ask for a report or not?
Again, I don't want to comment on the content of the report. I'll let the analysts do that. I think we need to do this out of respect for our colleagues. It won't take long, and when we start the May 21 meeting, we'll adopt the report and send it to both chambers. Then we'll get started. It seems like a formality to me, and once again, it would be a sign of respect for our colleagues.
I agree with Senator Carignan. The part that can be in camera is the part devoted to our drafting work. I think the work on the documents—what we want and what we don't want—should be done in public. It's a continuation of the work that we did on the documents in public.