Evidence of meeting #8 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.
The Joint Chair Bloc Rhéal Fortin
I think we're going to take two minutes to distribute it. Otherwise, we might not all be voting on the same text.
Senator, Ontario, CSG
Mr. Chair, might I propose we take a five-minute recess so we can discuss this, because this isn't exactly what was said? I think we can get to a place where everybody will be happy.
Bloc
Senator, Ontario, PSG)
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I propose that we rule out paragraphs (g) and (h) in their entirety, and then we vote on the main motion residing.
Bloc
The Joint Chair Bloc Rhéal Fortin
The problem is that we are now talking about Mr. Virani's proposal.
Could we consider that to be a subamendment?
We're taking about paragraph (g).
Mr. Harder, is the subamendment you're proposing intended to completely strike paragraph (g)?
Liberal
Arif Virani Liberal Parkdale—High Park, ON
My understanding, after having spoken with Senator Harder during the recess, is that his expressed desire was to remove all of paragraph (g), all of paragraph (h), and I believe all of paragraph (i), because (i) refers back to (g), so (g) doesn't exist. You'd have to get rid of (i). I've consulted with Ms. Bendayan and Mr. Naqvi, and we are comfortable with that.
I want to note for the record that I have also taken observation of the fact that at different points, members of every party and of each chamber have indicated the understanding that it is not only possible but also probable that redactions will occur in terms of the information that is being turned over. I want it put on the record that those redactions might be for various reasons, such as national security, as Mr. Motz's motion originally proposed, or the existence of an ongoing criminal investigation. They may also include—and I will want the record to reflect this—things such as solicitor-client privilege, cabinet confidence or matters that are currently before the courts, as there is already litigation ongoing on a constitutional basis on the very subject matter about which we are speaking.
Having said that, I would reiterate that I believe that Ms. Bendayan, Mr. Naqvi and I are in favour of removing paragraphs (g), (h) and (i) in their entirety.
Thank you.
NDP
The Joint Chair NDP Matthew Green
While I appreciate Mr. Virani's positioning for his caucus, I certainly do not accept that as the rationale for why I am supporting this particular thing. I come into this with no presuppositions about what we're going to receive. That's the spirit of why I'm supporting this. It doesn't in any way infer that I am condoning or accepting that we're going to receive a bunch of redacted documents.
Conservative
Glen Motz Conservative Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you both, Mr. Virani and Mr. Green.
I tend to agree with Mr. Green. I support the idea.... This committee needs the documents. I do not want to presuppose that, as Mr. Virani is suggesting, Canadians, this committee, should expect to have fully redacted documents: There's solicitor-client privilege, cabinet confidence, national security issues, all those things. Because of that, we're setting up the platform to get nothing. If we get nothing, we're not done. I'm putting that on notice, that we're not done.
Conservative
Glen Motz Conservative Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB
Yes. We're not done.
This does not mean that's what Canadians are going to get. I think that's important to appreciate. Canadians have expectations, and we're here to serve them.
Bloc
The Joint Chair Bloc Rhéal Fortin
Thank you, Mr. Motz.
From what I understand, Mr. Virani is withdrawing his proposal and asking instead that we strike paragraphs (g), (h) and (i) from Mr. Motz's motion.
Does everyone agree to that?
Ms. Bendayan, you have the floor.
Liberal
Rachel Bendayan Liberal Outremont, QC
Mr. Chair, it may not be very important, but I believe the amendment was proposed by Senator Harder, not Mr. Virani.
Bloc
The Joint Chair Bloc Rhéal Fortin
Yes, you're right. I apologize.
In fact, it hasn't been proposed.
Mr. Motz, you have the floor.
Conservative
Glen Motz Conservative Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB
I apologize, Chair.
I think one of the things we cannot remove is (i), to some degree—“be published on the Committee's website forthwith upon receipt”. That was in the motion, and I think that needs to stay, as is indicated on.... It would be the new (h), or however that is, on Mr. Virani's.... It would read, “the co-chairs shall cause the documents, as redacted pursuant to paragraph (f)”—that's what it would be now, as there is no (g)—“to be distributed to the members...and to be published on the committee's website forthwith upon receipt”. That needs to stay.
Bloc
The Joint Chair Bloc Rhéal Fortin
Mr. Harder and Mr. White want to speak, but before that, I want to say that I believe there's been a misunderstanding, since we have already amended paragraph (f) to say that the documents will be produced to the committee. As a result, it isn't the chairs who will receive them, it's the committee.
Mr. Motz, do you understand what I mean?
Conservative
Glen Motz Conservative Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB
Then maybe what we should do is add to (f) the end of what was previously in (i), “be distributed to the members of the committee”, which we have in (f) now—