Go ahead, Mr. Virani.
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.
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.
9:30 p.m.
Liberal
Arif Virani Liberal Parkdale—High Park, ON
I appreciate what the clerk is indicating, but I would reiterate that it troubled me, something that Mr. Motz said, because he said he didn't know what witnesses we had to call.
We have a motion that we passed just prior to Easter. I know that's three weeks ago, but I remember there were suggestions made. I moved the motion and then suggestions were made to improve it. I thought it was improved. We had a motion that says that officials from the Department of Public Safety, the PPS, Sergeant-at-Arms, the Department of Finance, the Department of Justice, the RCMP, CSIS, CBSA and FINTRAC be invited to appear before this committee on four dates chosen by committee members to discuss the measures invoked on February 14 under the Emergencies Act for a period of three hours each.
We went through some turmoil to get to that language that we agreed upon, and I guess what the clerk is looking for is for those dates to be chosen by the committee members.
With all due respect, I would propose a motion that we move to hear witnesses at the meeting on May 2, if my dates are correct, and that those witnesses include all of the people I just named. We see who will be available. I also propose we use all three hours, not a demi-rencontre but a full rencontre, a full meeting, to have those witnesses. This was three hours. It was tiring, but it was good. I think we should continue doing tiring but good work because there's a lot to get through.
I would move that motion and ask that we vote on that motion.
9:35 p.m.
Bloc
The Joint Chair Bloc Rhéal Fortin
Mr. Virani, for my own understanding, would you please tell me in which of those motions those witnesses are named?
I remember that we discussed this, but I can't find it in our motions.
9:35 p.m.
Liberal
Arif Virani Liberal Parkdale—High Park, ON
I don't remember the number of that motion, but I have the text in hand with the changes we made to it.
9:35 p.m.
Bloc
The Joint Chair Bloc Rhéal Fortin
So you move that we invite the people you named for next week.
Do we need to debate that motion?
9:35 p.m.
The Joint Clerk Mr. Paul Cardegna
The motion carried. Mr. Virani suggests that we invite some of those witnesses to testify on May 3. That's what I understand from his remarks.
9:35 p.m.
Liberal
Arif Virani Liberal Parkdale—High Park, ON
Yes. I was asking that we invite all of them and see who is available.
If some are available for next week, then we schedule them for next week. If there's spillover to the following week of May 10, then we continue to schedule. I believe that was the purpose of passing the motion and, Mr. Clerk, I think you were just waiting to hear about which dates.
My proposal would be that we just continue with next week and the following week to hear witnesses.
9:35 p.m.
Bloc
The Joint Chair Bloc Rhéal Fortin
Just for clarity's sake, Mr. Virani's motion is Motion No. 16, and Motion No. 17 concerns the representatives of the departments. Is that correct, Mr. Clerk?
9:35 p.m.
Bloc
The Joint Chair Bloc Rhéal Fortin
Motion No. 16 mentions the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance…
9:35 p.m.
Bloc
9:35 p.m.
Bloc
9:35 p.m.
Liberal
Arif Virani Liberal Parkdale—High Park, ON
I think Ms. Bendayan referred to the ministers. I meant the representatives.
9:35 p.m.
Bloc
The Joint Chair Bloc Rhéal Fortin
All right. So we're talking about the departmental representatives in Motion No. 17.
Mr. Green, would you like to speak?
9:35 p.m.
NDP
The Joint Chair NDP Matthew Green
When the motion was passed, we didn't have specificity on the dates.
I would just caution the committee that, given that these motions have already been put, at any time members of this committee can move their motion at their slot, even with witnesses present. I don't want this committee to delve into a scenario where we have the politics of the committee interfere with the testimony of the actual witnesses.
In that caution, I would suggest that, by setting aside time for committee business, we wouldn't run into a scenario that might interfere with the testimony of the ministers or witnesses at hand. It is well within our rights as committee members to move the motion at any point in time that we have the floor.
Rather than get into a scenario—and I'm contemplating myself being at the chair at some point in time—where that might be the case, I would ask that we do contemplate a set-aside to have those things that might not interfere and impede the testimony of the witnesses we've selected.
I just wanted to put that out there.
9:35 p.m.
Liberal
Rachel Bendayan Liberal Outremont, QC
Responding to my colleague Mr. Green, if the majority of committee members wish to spend time debating the motions, I suggest we add one meeting a week to our agenda to do that. Everyone here says how important it is to move forward efficiently and quickly, but that's not in fact what I see, Mr. Chair. What I see is that some members of the committee would like to put off indefinitely the important work we have to do, which is to ask witnesses questions in order to come to conclusions.
9:35 p.m.
Bloc
The Joint Chair Bloc Rhéal Fortin
One meeting is already scheduled for next Tuesday, Ms. Bendayan. The question is whether we'll debate motions for disclosure of documents or hear from witnesses. I've heard no one say we shouldn't proceed.
9:35 p.m.
Liberal
Rachel Bendayan Liberal Outremont, QC
There's already a motion on the table, that of my colleague Mr. Virani, and we're talking about planning future meetings to determine…
9:35 p.m.
Bloc
The Joint Chair Bloc Rhéal Fortin
Either we hear from witnesses or we discuss documents. It's one or the other.
9:35 p.m.
Liberal
Rachel Bendayan Liberal Outremont, QC
No, what I suggest is that we discuss documents at a second meeting.
9:35 p.m.
Liberal
Yasir Naqvi Liberal Ottawa Centre, ON
I just wanted add that we already have motions passed here that have determined that there are two ministers at the least and various officials from very important agencies that we want to hear from. At some point we need to give instructions to our clerks to start scheduling all of these people. It's not going to happen overnight.
In the motion, we actually said four weeks for other witnesses. I think it's only reasonable, given the important work that we have to do—and we saw today a lot of heavy lifting was done—that we continue with this process and at least start scheduling the people we have agreed to. That includes two more ministers and our witnesses from very important agencies that have been listed in the motion that Mr. Virani read.