Evidence of meeting #7 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 rcmp.
A video is available from Parliament.
The Joint Clerk Mr. Mark Palmer
That was not specified. It was just that there be committee business on—
Liberal
Liberal
Rachel Bendayan Liberal Outremont, QC
That is fine with me if all the members of this committee agree to it. However, I'd simply like to say that we certainly don't need three hours to examine the motions. I think we could get everything done in an hour and a half.
The possibility of the committee not hearing from witnesses and concluding its discussions of the motions after an hour, or an hour and a half, bothers me. The meeting would end early. I don't understand why we would do that.
If Mr. Fortin prefers another approach, where, for example, we would begin by discussing the motions and then hear from another witness, I would agree with that. Minister Blair is not available during the second part of our meeting, but other witnesses may be. If time permits, we could hear from them.
I find it unfortunate that we would finish dealing with the motions in an hour and not do anything after that.
The Joint Chair Hon. Gwen Boniface
I have Mr. Naqvi, Mr. Green, and then Mr. Fortin.
Mr. Naqvi.
Liberal
Yasir Naqvi Liberal Ottawa Centre, ON
Thank you very much.
I want to build on what my colleague, Ms. Bendayan, is suggesting. I don't recall having a discussion on spending an entire meeting doing committee business. I do agree that we need to tend to it. It was my understanding that we will spend half our time doing that, which should be appropriate for the issues that we need to discuss.
Furthermore, Minister Blair is available. He was an important part of the decision-making on the invocation of the Emergencies Act. I think it's important that we hear from him. He's available from 6:30 to 8:00 p.m next Tuesday. It's an excellent opportunity for us to continue to do the good work this committee is doing by listening to witnesses. Then we could spend the latter part of the meeting working on committee business, and I'm sure there will be sufficient time for us to resolve any issues that we have to as a committee.
NDP
The Joint Chair NDP Matthew Green
Thank you.
Had I been coming to this fresh, I might tend to agree, but having sat through last session I know that sometimes when we come to an impasse at committees over the will of a committee, it's sometimes a tactic to filibuster or to use committee time in a way that would frustrate the outcomes of a particular vote. I say that on top of the frustration that I have about the lack of information, candour or frankness that we've had from multiple witnesses who have been before us in this process.
We keep hearing about cabinet confidentiality. I want to put on the record the view of our former general legal counsel of the House of Commons, Diane Davidson, who stated that there exists no blanket immunity for the executive branch in making public interest claims against the disclosure of confidential interest to a parliamentary committee.
For me, I'm getting to a point within this committee where it's almost beginning to feel like a breach of privilege or in some cases a contempt of this committee not to get basic information that will be required to provide Canadians, and future legislators, quite frankly, with the clarity they need. It should be noted that our former general legal counsel noted that immunity has never been formally acknowledged in the House of Commons as inhibiting its investigatory powers and that the public interest to be considered and weighed in judicial proceedings is not the same as the public interest to be considered and weighed when evidence is sought for parliamentary purposes.
Why I bring that up, Madam Chair, is that at stake in our next round of committee business will likely be our committee's power to compel and produce documents, which, for me, would provide the framework and the basis to ask and form questions of ministers. We don't have that currently. In fact, we've had no preliminary testimony, in my opinion, aside from the evidence from Mr. Perrin Beatty and our legal clerks that would set forth the framework for our work plan, but subsequent to that I feel like we're being frustrated at every turn, and unnecessarily so.
The Joint Chair Hon. Gwen Boniface
I want to move to Mr. Fortin, but I want to get to your bottom line.
NDP
The Joint Chair NDP Matthew Green
My bottom line is that we're going to need three hours. If we come to an impasse, we might find ourselves in a procedural filibuster.
The Joint Chair Hon. Gwen Boniface
Okay. Thank you.
I didn't mean to be rude, Mr Green, but I'm worried about our time and getting our people on.
Mr. Fortin.
Bloc
The Joint Chair Bloc Rhéal Fortin
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I, too, am concerned about the use of time. As I often say, I would love to have our work completed before the end of the session in mid-June, but we can't rush our work. It has to be done correctly, so we have to settle things. If it doesn't take three hours, all the better. I'm convinced that we'll all find something to do between eight o'clock and nine o'clock or between nine o'clock and 10 o'clock. I'm not worried about that.
However, to allow us to move as quickly as possible next week, or at least to allow us to resolve all this within three hours, Madam Chair, I would like to make a suggestion. I propose that we ask our analysts to identify every objection raised in the comments we've heard so far concerning requests to produce documents or questions. The date and time of each objection could also be noted, along with the name of the witness who raised it and the document or question involved. That list could be distributed to all the members of the committee. That way, when we meet next Tuesday, we would have a list and would know what we were talking about. That could be helpful.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
The Joint Chair Hon. Gwen Boniface
Thank you, Mr. Fortin.
We'll go to Mr. Motz, and then we'll close with Senator Harder.
Conservative
Glen Motz Conservative Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB
Thank you, Chair.
I would agree with Mr. Fortin and Mr. Green. I think it behooves us to follow what we wanted to do from the very beginning, which was develop a committee work plan. The analysts have had it available for us. We need to confirm it, make it ours and move forward with it.
We have a number of motions that are still on the table. There's not just one, we have a number of them that we need to deal with. With respect to Mr. Naqvi, I'm confident that Mr. Blair is available for more than only 6:30 till 8 o'clock next Tuesday. He'll be available between now and whenever we might choose to call him. I'm sure he'll be available to us again down the road.
I support three hours.
Senator, Ontario, PSG
Thank you, Chair. I'll be brief.
I would have preferred to hear a witness and then get to committee business, but for the comity of the committee, I'm quite happy to have three hours. I hope that we do more than just debate the outstanding motions, but have a discussion of the work plan going forward, so that we can give our staff some predictability about witnesses we would like to see for the next number of weeks.
I think we will have a significant debate and differences of view, which is fine, but let's state them once and get to a decision.
The Joint Chair Hon. Gwen Boniface
There seems to be some consensus around the table on having a three-hour committee business meeting next week. Do you want to call a vote on it, or are you satisfied?
The Joint Chair Hon. Gwen Boniface
All right.
Before we close, I want to first thank our interpreters, who have stayed beyond 9:30 to assist us. Thank you all.
The meeting is now adjourned.