Declaration of Emergency Committee on May 31st, 2022

[The Joint Chair, Bloc, Rhéal Fortin]

Thank you, Mr. Brock.

Ms. Bendayan, you may speak.

[Rachel Bendayan, Liberal, Outremont, QC]

I will be very brief, Mr. Chair.

To follow up on what my colleague was just saying, if we agree, we can ask the clerk to check whether there's a possibility of holding two meetings per week from now until the end of the parliamentary session. We have three weeks in front of us. I think everyone agrees that we could move this along faster if we met more often.

[The Joint Chair, Bloc, Rhéal Fortin]

Madam Clerk, are there possible times?

The clerk can check and provide us with a proposal next week, when she has checked on the availability of rooms and personnel.

Mr. Brock, you have the floor.

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant, ON]

I've spoken to the leadership of the Conservative team, and there is absolutely no chance at all.

I applaud Ms. Bendayan's efforts to move this along, because it is important that Canadians see that we're actually conducting business, not just talking about committee affairs, and that we're interviewing and questioning witnesses. The reality is meetings are being cancelled and have been cancelled, literally, for the last several weeks because of a resource issue. It's a limitation issue. We can take a look at the larger picture and the hybrid Parliament we've been subjected to for the better part of two years. This has contributed to a stretch on resources. The decision by the Liberal government to engage in midnight sittings on a fairly regular basis has taxed our ability to find additional resources, particularly for the extra work the interpretation team is doing. They do it very well, but there's a limit to what we have.

While I applaud Ms. Bendayan's efforts to move this along, the sad reality is the government has contributed to the problem we are facing.

[The Joint Chair, Bloc, Rhéal Fortin]

Thank you, Mr. Brock.

Ms. Bendayan, you have the floor.

[Rachel Bendayan, Liberal, Outremont, QC]

Yes, to respond to Mr. Brock, I certainly appreciate the information he's providing on behalf of the Conservative leadership, but with due respect, Candice Bergen doesn't speak on behalf of this committee.

I have asked the clerk of the committee to get back to us with respect to the availability of interpreters and rooms so that we may do our work expeditiously.

[The Joint Chair, Bloc, Rhéal Fortin]

There's no problem, we've already agreed. Ms. Burke, the clerk, told me that she would check on availability and report to us next week. We will see what Ms. Burke tells us at the next meeting.

Mr. Brock has stated his opinion and said there would be no availability. I'm inclined to think he's right, but we shall see. It doesn't stop us trying. Let's see what availability the clerk can find us.

We will also have to consider our agenda. We have decided on a certain number of witnesses, and there are others to be heard. Are we going to sit during the summer or not? There are all sorts of questions of that kind that we can examine. For the moment, let's wait to see what the clerk's response is about the availability of rooms.

Mr. Motz, you have the floor.

[Glen Motz, Conservative, Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB]

Thank you, Chair, and thank you to Ms. Bendayan for her intervention.

We certainly look forward to hearing from the clerk on availability and are open to additional meetings, however they may look. We're at least having the conversation.

[The Joint Chair, Bloc, Rhéal Fortin]

Thank you, Mr. Motz.

Does anyone else want to speak?

Senator Boniface, you have the floor.

[The Joint Chair, Hon. Gwen Boniface (Senator, Ontario, ISG)]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I provided a motion to the clerk to do with the oath of secrecy. I wonder if it can be shared with everyone, if that has not been done.

Mr. Chair, while that's being done, may we just take a five-minute break?

[The Joint Chair, Bloc, Rhéal Fortin]

Right.

I am suspending the meeting for five minutes. When we come back, we will consider Senator Boniface's motion.

[The Joint Chair, Bloc, Rhéal Fortin]

We are going to resume our work.

I invite you to return to your seats.

We can now consider Ms. Boniface's motion.

Do you wish to speak to your motion, Ms. Boniface?

[The Joint Chair, Hon. Gwen Boniface]

Yes, very briefly, if I may, Mr. Chair.

I think I've spoken to each of the groups around the table. The purpose is really to give us a baseline on and a common understanding of the interpretation of the oath of secrecy, so I would move that we go to a vote.

[The Joint Chair, Bloc, Rhéal Fortin]

The motion is subject to debate, Ms. Boniface.

So I'm going to make a note of the names of the people who want to speak.

Mr. Green, you have the floor.

[The Joint Chair, NDP, Matthew Green]

I wish I had that power, to just move the motion and get right to the vote.

I've just shared these comments in person. I would like to reflect on them now.

I'm quite clear that when the law clerks come back they'll likely have an opinion that the oath of secrecy pertains simply to the secret orders in council. I don't know whether we are or are not at that point yet, but I just want to be clear that in supporting this, that will be my understanding in terms of our oath of secrecy. However, I'm not willing to concede on the fact that we still have the ability as a committee to get to the heart of the matter and have parliamentary privileges that are beyond what has been presented to us.

I want to point out, Mr. Chair, that when we hear members around this table talk about frustration and getting to work, I can't imagine a scenario in which we continue to invite witnesses who continue to come before us and tell us that they can't tell us anything. That's frustrating. That was the case with the ministers we had before us. That was the case with CSIS and with the RCMP.

My hope is that in this motion we also have the ability to contemplate, when it comes back, as a committee, matters for which we are going to demand extra scrutiny. That's where we will, hopefully, create parameters of when we ought to be going in camera to, hopefully, be privy to the facts of the matter. As it stands now, this motion will pass, and they'll come back and just say it's a code of secrecy for the secret orders in council that were constituted over the course of the emergency, which will be likely very minimal, given what we already know as a committee.

Those are my reflections on this motion. I'll support it, knowing where it's going to go, but I will also continue to beat the drum about wanting to get to a place as a committee where we have access to real information and where we have a duty of candour from our witnesses.

The last point of contention is that, referencing back to the Attorney General, who is also the Minister of Justice, they are always both the client and the solicitor at all times, and therefore my challenge is that we're not going to have access to anything substantive.

Thank you.

[The Joint Chair, Bloc, Rhéal Fortin]

Thank you, Mr. Green.

I had put my own name on the list.

Does someone else wish to speak? Ms. Bendayan do you want the floor?

I'm therefore going to speak briefly, and then it will be Ms. Bendayan's turn.

Ms. Boniface, I want to draw your attention to the fact that there's a translation error in your document. In English, you say:

“information the committee can access from witnesses”.

However, in French, you say: "quels renseignements peut consulter le Comité au sujet des témoins".

The passage "renseignements au sujet des témoins" does not mean "information we obtain from witnesses" at all. I think that correction has to be made before studying this motion.

With that said, Senator, I believe I understand from this motion that you are asking for a joint opinion. That is a way of forcing the two law clerks and parliamentary counsel to reconcile their opinions, if necessary, when, in reality, it might benefit the committee to have two opinions. So if one of the law clerks and parliamentary counsel wanted to qualify something, he should be free to do so; he should not be obliged to stifle his reservations or qualifications for the purposes of a joint opinion.

First, there is the correction to be made to the French. Second, it seems to me to be wiser for the committee to have two opinions rather than one joint opinion.

And last, I am also wondering whether, for the entire exercise, it is useful to debate that now, since we don't yet know what information we're going to get. Once the witnesses have produced documents or we know part of the information, we will be able to ask the law clerks and parliamentary counsel whether or not that information is confidential. For that reason, at this point, I wonder whether we aren't going a bit too fast.

Those are the three comments I wanted to submit to the committee, the most urgent to be considered being the French translation. Of course, if we have to decide on the motion, it's important that we all be deciding on the same thing. At present, I would say that the passage that concerns me in the French version makes no sense. I don't see how the law clerks and parliamentary counsel could tell me what information to consult about the witnesses. I can go to Google to find out who a particular witness is. That's something else entirely.

Ms. Bendayan, the floor is yours.

[Rachel Bendayan, Liberal, Outremont, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I have somewhat the same concern as you. Obviously, no one can speak for the law clerk and parliamentary counsel in question, but by including the date, June 13, we are hoping he will be able to meet with us on that date. The law clerk and parliamentary counsel might be able to let us know whether that will be possible for him. I hope that will be the case.

On a similar line of ideas to yours, I note that it says in French that it must be distributed to the committee members "avant le 13 juin, while in English, it says "by June 13th". That's a detail.

To conclude, I'd like to ask the senator to clarify one point. It isn't necessary to actually include it in the motion. Does she expect to get something in writing?

Given that we have just adopted the motion about the committee's upcoming meetings, we could accept something in writing. However, I don't really see whether there is time left for the law clerk and parliamentary counsel to submit his conclusions to us.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Joint Chair, Bloc, Rhéal Fortin]

Does anyone else want to speak?

Ms. Boniface, the floor is yours.

[The Joint Chair, Hon. Gwen Boniface]

Yes. Thank you for pointing out the French. It did go through translation services, so I regret that it's not accurate, but I just want to reassure you it was sent to translation services. I can have that adjusted.

The intention here was it would be a written opinion, not an appearance as such, and just for the basic information of the committee members around the table. We thought that would help us as we move forward.

I didn't see it as premature to your point, Mr. Chair. I saw it as merely giving us a piece of information to help us as that new information comes forward on redactions and such like, and in our planning going ahead for the work plan.

I'm in your hands in terms of how you'd like to do it. If you want me to bring it back to the table, I could do that with the correction that you suggest. I'm in your hands either way.

[The Joint Chair, Bloc, Rhéal Fortin]

Thank you.

Mr. Green, the floor is yours.

[The Joint Chair, NDP, Matthew Green]

In reading this, while I appreciate having the joint opinions of the law clerks of the Senate and of the House of Commons, I think that this is actually contrary to our Standing Orders and our parliamentary privilege.

My question through you, Mr. Chair, to Ms. Boniface is that as a chair, would you use this opinion to guide what questions were in or without the mandate of our questioning and our lines of questioning?

[The Joint Chair, Hon. Gwen Boniface]

I think your question actually demonstrates what I see as an issue around the table. I was trying to get clarity as to what information an oath of secrecy gives us. How does the oath of secrecy make this committee's operation different from others for me as an individual, both in what I have access to and also in terms of what I can share?

The whole point of this was merely to say we took an oath of secrecy. I'd like to know what exactly that allows us access to, because that's not a normal practice of the committee and it's not something we asked the clerks when they were here.

I thought this would be a rather quick motion. It was really to try to get that single clarity, because when I have discussions with individuals or in our groups, I feel that there's a very different understanding around the table on what the oath of secrecy's impact is for the work that we're doing. As I describe it to some of my colleagues at the table, I want to know what the baseline is, and that's what the law clerks' opinion would be in writing.

I leave it to the committee. It's a suggestion and a motion I put forward.

[The Joint Chair, Bloc, Rhéal Fortin]

I added my name to the list while you were speaking, Senator Boniface.

I'd like to speak not as chair, but as a member of the committee. To simplify things, could we not invite the two law clerks and parliamentary counsel to a later meeting where we could all ask the questions on our minds about the scope of the oath of confidentiality we have taken?

It might be clearer that way. I'm wondering about that. It might be wiser to have them both here. We could tell them in advance that we want to discuss the scope of the oath we took with them. We could listen to them and then ask them the questions we want to ask them. That seems to me to be more efficient.

I'm now going to yield the floor to Mr. Virani.

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

I'm just conscious of the need to get on with the business of the committee hearing witnesses, so I think the motion as created and as articulated by Senator Boniface is useful. I would just perhaps insert the word “written”, so it's “seek a joint written opinion” from the law clerk, to make it crystal clear. Then perhaps if there's any necessity after the fact, after we receive the written opinion, we could pose some interrogatories to the law clerks at a later date.

[The Joint Chair, Bloc, Rhéal Fortin]

Mr. Harder, you have the floor.