Evidence of meeting #9 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 service.
A recording is available from Parliament.
3:40 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Yasmin Ratansi
So there would be three people on the 21st and one person on the 28th?
3:40 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Yasmin Ratansi
Because your motion includes the word “summons”, the clerk has to look up the precedent for me.
3:40 p.m.
Liberal
Martha Hall Findlay Liberal Willowdale, ON
There is another motion that's ancillary to the first. While the clerk is looking it up, can I put this one forward?
3:40 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Yasmin Ratansi
Can we park this motion that Madam Hall Findlay has...?
Oui, monsieur Gourde.
3:40 p.m.
Conservative
Jacques Gourde Conservative Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, QC
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Unfortunately, I did not take any notes. That is why it is so important to provide amendments in writing. I do not have the dates. I was not able to follow.
3:40 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Yasmin Ratansi
This is not an amendment to the motion.
In the motion that you have in front of you, instead of “inviting” they want to “summon” the witnesses. We want to see procedurally whether that is correct or incorrect. That's why Madam Hall Findlay has put forth a motion that says we summon them rather than invite them. The first motion has gone through, and the general process for the list of witnesses is that we invite them. She would like them to be summoned. Whether the motion to summon passes or not depends on whether there's a procedural precedent on it.
Mr. Gourde is next, and then Mr. Warkentin.
3:40 p.m.
Conservative
Jacques Gourde Conservative Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, QC
Madam Chair, I understand what you have just explained. However, Ms. Hall Findlay gave us a series of dates. After that, she gave us different ones. I did not jot them down. We agreed to an amendment without having it in writing, but had we been given it in writing, we would have been able to follow.
Could we have Ms. Hall Findlay's dates in writing, please?
3:40 p.m.
Liberal
Martha Hall Findlay Liberal Willowdale, ON
Yes, of course. Also, I have just been asked to make a further change. So, I will repeat the four dates.
3:40 p.m.
Conservative
Russ Hiebert Conservative South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale, BC
There's a fair amount of confusion here. I'm wondering whether we could have a written copy so that we could look at something.
3:40 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Yasmin Ratansi
The first thing we need to understand is whether we can issue a summons. That's the one thing we are going to park, because if we can't issue summonses, we will have to call the witnesses and say here are the dates we are suggesting. If moving to summon is not the right motion, then she can present one saying here are the dates.
Let's just park it while the clerk is looking for a precedent as to whether we can summon them. Procedurally that may or may not be possible.
3:45 p.m.
Conservative
Russ Hiebert Conservative South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale, BC
Shall we defer this to the meeting on Monday, so that we can hear from our witnesses?
3:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Yasmin Ratansi
No. We don't defer it; we're just going to let the clerk take a few minutes to have a look at it. Then we can say yes or no. Is that fair enough?
Mr. Warkentin was first, and then Mr. Holder.
3:45 p.m.
Conservative
Chris Warkentin Conservative Peace River, AB
Madam Chair, what I would suggest, since we have witnesses waiting right now and we have a meeting... This isn't the way this meeting was planned, and we have votes. Why don't we proceed? If we just have to call the vote right now on this motion, let's address this. My preference would be that we invite these folks; if they don't show up, then we issue a summons down the road.
But let's deal with this right now, in this moment, and get on with the witnesses for today, out of respect for these folks who have come to provide testimony. We are going to be constrained at the end of our meeting by having to get to a vote. Let's proceed. My preference is that we move on and allow the clerk to invite these folks. If they don't come, we'll proceed with other action.
3:45 p.m.
Liberal
Martha Hall Findlay Liberal Willowdale, ON
Madam Chair, why don't we just vote on the motion as is? If the clerk then says that it's not possible, then it reverts back to an invitation as opposed to a summons, but we vote in support of the summons motion.
3:45 p.m.
Conservative
Ed Holder Conservative London West, ON
Excuse me. We're having a friendly battle. We have an order of speakers, Madam Chair.
3:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Yasmin Ratansi
I'm sorry. I just wanted to know whether the mover of the motion wanted to agree to what Mr. Warkentin has said. I would like to keep this such that, if you agree among yourselves, then I don't have to cast the deciding vote.
Mr. Holder, you have the floor.
3:45 p.m.
Conservative
Ed Holder Conservative London West, ON
I always enjoy your deciding votes, Madam Chair.
To me, it comes down to courtesy towards our guests. Even if we have the ability to summon initially versus ultimately—certainly we could ultimately—I think the messaging is better, more thoughtful, and shows more respect to our guests when we do it that way. I absolutely agree with how Pat Martin is discussing it and Chris initiated it. I think this should be a request. I'd be frankly very disappointed if they wouldn't attend to this committee's request, but we have the ability to respond, if they don't.
Regardless, what moves this along is simply to extend the invitation. I'm not going to beat my gums on this one, but I think a request is the proper way and shows proper form, regardless.
3:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Yasmin Ratansi
I think we agreed that this would go for 15 minutes. We have to stop immediately.
I can read the last...and then I'll read what it says in the rules of procedure, and then we can vote.
3:45 p.m.
Liberal
Martha Hall Findlay Liberal Willowdale, ON
Just to make sure, because Monsieur Gourde raised a good point, this wasn't provided in writing. The first one was, but because this is an ancillary motion, it is capable of being brought forward today. But I want to make sure the dates are right.
The summons motion is that the committee order that Mr. Jaffer be issued a summons to appear on the 21st day of April; that Mr. Mike Mihelic—I don't have to repeat the whole thing, because I gave it before—be issued a summons to appear at 3:30 on the 28th of April; that Mr. Patrick Glémaud be issued a summons to appear at 3:30 on the 21st of April; and that Mr. Nazim Gillani be issued a summons to appear at 3:30 on the 28th of April, all dates being 2010.
I appreciate Mr. Warkentin's suggestion that we just vote on the basis that it is there and move forward.
3:45 p.m.
Conservative
Ed Holder Conservative London West, ON
My final thing is that if this becomes a summons, ultimately I'll vote against it. If it's a request, I'll vote for it. That's just for the record.
3:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Yasmin Ratansi
Let me read from O'Brien and Bosc, page 974, and then you guys make up your minds.
Standing committees often need the collaboration, expertise and knowledge of a variety of individuals to assist them in their studies and investigations. Usually these persons appear willingly before committees when invited to do so. But situations may arise where an individual does not agree to appear and give evidence. If the committee considers that this evidence is essential to its study, it has the power to summon such a person to appear.
But the summons has to be done by adoption of a motion. Then “The summons, signed by the Chair of the committee, is served on each of the individuals by a bailiff.”
So, ladies and gentlemen, you have to make a decision whether you want to invite or want a motion for a summons. Can we vote on it?
Yes, Mr. Warkentin.