Evidence of meeting #37 for Government Operations and Estimates in the 40th Parliament, 3rd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was summit.
A recording is available from Parliament.
10:40 a.m.
Conservative
Chris Warkentin Conservative Peace River, AB
--it is a conspiracy that would include one of their own former members.
If in fact they believe that to be true, then I think the question has to be asked: What is their motivation? What is behind it? The evidence entirely--
10:40 a.m.
Conservative
Chris Warkentin Conservative Peace River, AB
--is contrary to the conspiracy that's been brought forward. So what is the motivation of the members opposite? If you're going to start making determinations--
10:40 a.m.
Conservative
Chris Warkentin Conservative Peace River, AB
--as to what may be offensive and may not be offensive to members, I think we're opening a discussion that will only inevitably lead to debate.
There are several things that I found offensive that were brought forward by the Liberals today, and by you, Mr. Chair, in bringing forward this conspiracy in the House yesterday. I find it very, very offensive.
I didn't bring a point of order. I believe the facts speak for themselves. If the honourable members believe that the facts speak for themselves, they'll leave it--
10:40 a.m.
Liberal
10:40 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John McKay
In my judgment, the remarks are out of order. It speaks poorly about all of us as parliamentarians.
I want to thank each and every one of you, as witnesses, for coming. We appreciate the efforts you've made to answer questions faithfully.
I'm going to suspend for one minute while the witnesses leave. I take note that we are almost at the end of time for our committee meeting.
I believe Madam Coady has a motion.
I'll invite the witnesses to leave the table for the time being. Thank you very much.
10:40 a.m.
Liberal
10:45 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John McKay
Ladies and gentlemen, can we come back to order, please?
Madam Coady, you have a motion to present.
10:45 a.m.
Liberal
Siobhan Coady Liberal St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL
Yes, I do. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I appreciate it.
As you will recall, I made an original motion for all the documentation around the G-8 and G-20 summit. One we have not received yet is the Ontario Provincial Police details and all their associated costs. For clarity, I'd like to ensure we move the following motion. Do you want me to read it into the record?
10:45 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John McKay
We are pressed for time. I'm assuming everyone has a copy of the motion. Do people wish to comment?
Do you wish to make any other further comments?
10:45 a.m.
Liberal
Siobhan Coady Liberal St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL
Just that we have the details of the Toronto Police Service and we have all the other details. The one we're missing is the Ontario Provincial Police. I don't know why we haven't received that when we've received Toronto, for example.
10:45 a.m.
Conservative
Chris Warkentin Conservative Peace River, AB
Yes, I think the testimony today provided a reason for it. The details are not required until December 1. The folks who were here explained to us that we haven't received all that information yet. It hasn't been received by the department. The department has no reason to mislead you, Ms. Coady, and if you respect them as much as you say you respect them you'll believe them when they say all the details haven't been brought forward yet and it would be impossible for that department to release information they don't have.
If you're calling on the Government of Ontario to bring forward information faster than what they agreed to do in the timeframe, we'll have to ask if the Ontario government has the capacity to bring forward that information sooner than the prescribed timeframes within the agreement.
10:45 a.m.
Liberal
Siobhan Coady Liberal St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL
Thank you very much.
I think that's exactly the point. We're asking the Ontario Provincial Police to provide that information to us, just as the Toronto Police Service has done. We can respect the department if they have not received it yet, but when we had a representative they were most accommodating. They had a list of details they were prepared to give us at that time. I'm sure they have details they'd be willing to give this committee.
10:45 a.m.
Conservative
Chris Warkentin Conservative Peace River, AB
The agreement is with the Province of Ontario, so I think we'd have to ask the Province of Ontario to expedite these details. I'm not in any position where I can support this, because it contradicts the agreement with the Province of Ontario. Even though it is a Liberal government, I still have full respect for the authority of that province and I don't believe the Province of Ontario is undertaking any kind of sinister action as to why they haven't brought forward the full details. So I can't support that. It would bring forward an undue and an irresponsible obligation onto a provincial government in contravention of an agreement that's been signed between the two governments. Therefore, I won't support it. And I believe that in due time we'll have all those details.
10:45 a.m.
Conservative
Ed Holder Conservative London West, ON
Thanks very much, Chair.
I'm not going to support the motion. I want to explain why.
They've signed an arrangement to say they will have things at a specific time. I accept them at their word. I'm not going to impute a motive as to why we're trying to elevate a timeframe beyond an arrangement that's already been committed to. Some might think there's some political motivation to that, and I'm not going to suggest that. I'm not, because that will be a question some might ask.
But it strikes me that this is not urgent. This is a function of their having already committed to a timeframe; they have a process in place. And I haven't heard a compelling reason why it needs to be expedited for the sake of some days. We're already at November 18. They've committed to doing this in the next dozen days, so I'm not sure, frankly, that I understand what the difference between that dozen days and somehow making it nine or ten days would be, unless there was a motivation I just don't understand. Maybe Ms. Coady could explain it.
10:50 a.m.
Liberal
Siobhan Coady Liberal St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL
Thank you very much. I will respond to your comment.
When I put forward the original motion, I asked for the production of papers, as you will recall. We gave two extensions to the government to produce those documents, and they did so publicly without the courtesy of sending it to the committee first. But that's okay, they did that.
In that documentation we have everything else but the Ontario Provincial Police's. When the colleague was here from the Ontario Provincial Police, he had a list; he told us during the committee process that he had the documentation there before us. What we're merely asking—and quite frankly I don't understand why we don't have it—is would the Ontario Provincial Police, knowing they have it, because he had it with him that day, provide it to our committee?
We're in the midst of studying this. If we're hearing it's going to government December 1, then if government takes as much time to get it to us, we're well into February before we get any documentation, because obviously we don't sit during the month of January. So I'm not quite sure why we couldn't ask the Ontario Provincial Police. Toronto gave it to us, as did everybody else. Why couldn't they give it to us so we have the documentation in the midst of our study?
10:50 a.m.
Conservative
Ed Holder Conservative London West, ON
I was the one who asked the question. It's almost like, when is a deal a deal? So when it doesn't suit us, we change the deal.
We have an arrangement. We're talking 12 days from now. Frankly, if it's ahead of that, it feels politically motivated, Siobhan, I have to tell you. It feels like that to me. Maybe it isn't, from your perspective, but it feels absolutely that way to me, the way you've described it, because we're talking about 12 days.
They've signed an agreement that they would have it by then. They've committed to doing that, and frankly, anything other than that, it just--
