Evidence of meeting #5 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 question.
A video is available from Parliament.
Conservative
Glen Motz Conservative Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB
Thank you, Chair.
You know, I find it interesting that there's an offhanded accusation that some members of this committee want to push off witness testimony. We're here to hear witness testimony, but we also have some rules and parameters around the motions that are set here about how we're going to do business and they haven't been resolved yet. We need to resolve them. We can still hear witnesses. We need to hear witnesses, but to suggest that we take even half a committee meeting to deal with some of the motions, and deal with them and then move on.... I think it's a little irresponsible as a committee that, you know, we just want to get at the committee, but we have no structure around what we're going to do with some of this stuff.
In terms of what we're asking the government to give us, as Mr. Green indicated, we already know what the government's position is on sharing the information that they relied upon to invoke the act. A number of us around this table have suggested that we need that information to make an informed decision. If you look at the motions that are here, motions 16 and 17, there's a....
Mr. Naqvi, you talk about the officials. These officials are not going to come all in one day. It will be at least four days, or maybe even five or six days. To have one agency per hour and a half would be reasonable. As we found out today, you really can't get a whole lot of information asked if you have various agencies that have totally different areas of responsibility that you want to get information from.
I say let's be responsible and prudent about the responsibilities that we have as a committee. Let's set half a meeting aside, and let's move on to witnesses after that.
Bloc
The Joint Chair Bloc Rhéal Fortin
Mr. Brock is the next speaker on the list. However, with your permission, I'd like to speak. Otherwise I don't know when I will be able to do so.
I simply want to mention that I would like us to resolve the pending motions, to carry or negative them. I need to know where I stand.
For example, we have the ministers telling us they don't want to disclose documents and aren't entitled to do so. I'd like to put that question to the committee's legal counsel, except that we haven't yet designated any legal counsel. We have a motion under which independent legal counsel is required, and we have an amendment or counter-motion under which we would hand the matter over to the Clerk of the House.
The fact remains that I have a question: can I compel the minister, or can the committee compel the minister, to provide us with the opinions he has received so that his final testimony includes the documents he refers to in his answer? In my view, he must provide them, but I don't have any legal counsel I can question on the matter.
Consequently, we have to decide the pending motions in order to get one. If the motions are negatived and we wind up without legal counsel, I'll make do. I'll get one; I'll bring in a lawyer as a witness and ask him the question. As you can understand, these are things we have to do. I too would like to hear witnesses, a lot of witnesses and for a long period of time, all summer if necessary. However, I think we first have to establish our work plan.
Mr. Motz's motions on legal expertise, the themes we'll address during the study and disclosure of documents, as well as Ms. Bendayan's counter-motion on that point, are all important issues. I think we have to resolve them so we can continue our work with peace of mind, knowing where we're headed.
I just wanted to give you my opinion, that we need to decide these motions even if it means taking up an hour and a half. I don't think the process is necessarily long, but it has to be done.
Go ahead, Mr. Brock.
Conservative
Larry Brock Conservative Brantford—Brant, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair. In light of your comments or intervention, I have nothing further to add.
Thank you.
The Joint Chair Hon. Gwen Boniface
I was going to suggest that we call the question. We're only speaking, as of tonight, on this motion for next week.
Bloc
The Joint Chair Bloc Rhéal Fortin
Is everyone fine with that?
Mr. Clerk, you will proceed by recorded vote on Mr. Virani's motion that next week we will hear…
Conservative
Glen Motz Conservative Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB
We don't have Mr. Green and we need to hear the motion, please.
Conservative
Larry Brock Conservative Brantford—Brant, ON
I have a point of order.
Senator Harder has suggested we have quorum and we can proceed with the vote. That is so disrespectful to members of this committee. We're entitled to a comfort break, and that's where I believe my colleague Mr. Green is, who is now entering the room.
The Joint Chair Bloc Rhéal Fortin
We have an answer.
Thank you, Mr. Brock.
Everyone is present. Mr. Clerk, would you please read the motion so that it's clear?
The Joint Clerk Mr. Paul Cardegna
For the benefit of members of the committee, Mr. Virani moved that on May 3, the committee hear witnesses from the list that was adopted earlier of grouped witnesses for three hours. It's to hear witnesses for three hours from the group.
Bloc
The Joint Chair Bloc Rhéal Fortin
Mr. Virani recommended Motion No. 17.
I will read it, if you wish.
The Joint Clerk Mr. Paul Cardegna
My understanding is that Mr. Virani suggested that the meeting on May 3 be devoted to hearing the witnesses that are available from the following list: the RCMP, CSIS, the CBSA, Department of Public Safety, Department of Finance, Department of Justice and FINTRAC, as well as PPS, the Sergeant-at-Arms and the Usher of the Black Rod.
Conservative
Glen Motz Conservative Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB
It's a great motion, but how many are we going to call, and is it just for that meeting? That's what we have to figure out. Is it just for next Tuesday? Are we doing three of them, or are we doing two of them?
Conservative
Glen Motz Conservative Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB
Yes, it's a buffet. We have to advise the clerk. There could be five of them available. That's not appropriate. We need one or two, so one per hour and a half.
Liberal
Arif Virani Liberal Parkdale—High Park, ON
The motion was for four dates for three hours each. That's roughly.... I believe we talked about how we would potentially group them and it was something like two or three per grouping.
I have written down here, now that I look at it, that Justice, RCMP and CSIS would be grouped as one; Finance and FINTRAC would be grouped as another; the Department of Public Safety and CBSA would be grouped as a third; and PPS, the Sergeant-at-Arms and the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod would be grouped as the fourth. Those are the four groupings that we discussed. Depending on the availability, whichever group is available on May 3 is the one we'll proceed with.
Do you need me to repeat that?
The groupings were Justice, the RCMP and CSIS. That's one group. The second grouping was the Department of Finance and FINTRAC. The third group was the Department of Public Safety and CBSA. The fourth group was the PPS, the Sergeant-at-Arms and the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod. I'm glad I get to say that twice. If you could please bring the black rod, we'd all be very impressed. That's a bit of levity late on a Tuesday.
I propose we start scheduling all of them, to be frank, and start with whoever is available on May 3.
Conservative