Evidence of meeting #104 for Government Operations and Estimates in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was cbsa.
A video is available from Parliament.
3:55 p.m.
Conservative
Michael Barrett Conservative Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON
We'll get you some kleenex.
3:55 p.m.
Conservative
3:55 p.m.
Conservative
Michael Barrett Conservative Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON
You've shown contempt for Canadians.
3:55 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kelly McCauley
Mr. Barrett, please.
I understand, Mr. Kusmierczyk, and we're going to move on.
I think Ms. Vignola had her hand up. No, now she doesn't.
Ms. Atwin had her hand up. Are you speaking, or did you take your hand down? I have Mr. Jowhari as well.
3:55 p.m.
Liberal
Jenica Atwin Liberal Fredericton, NB
I will cede my time, Mr. Chair, but I just want to mention that to suggest that the subcommittee is somehow nefarious in its responsibilities to this committee is just unbelievable. However, it's kind of like the rest of the discussions that we've been having. I wish Mr. Barrett would retract that statement.
3:55 p.m.
Conservative
3:55 p.m.
Conservative
3:55 p.m.
Liberal
Majid Jowhari Liberal Richmond Hill, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
In that subcommittee, what we will be discussing in a very open way is the health situation, because we are not allowed to discuss the implications of those health situations. We're not allowed to talk publicly about the testimony that we want to hear on health here—the implications, the safeguards and the potential threat to the safety and security of those involved. For us to come back and make the accommodation, we need to talk about that, but we cannot talk about that in public, so there is no conspiracy theory. There's nothing we're trying to hide.
I'd gladly give my spot to anybody who wants to be part of the subcommittee as long as we're talking about the safeguards, or the chair can come back and rule that there is no issue now and that we can talk about these things publicly and it's not going to impact integrity. I'll be the first one who votes for going in public and talking about it, because we're dying to go public to talk about this.
The reason we are saying that the subcommittee should be in camera is that we will be talking about the safeguards and the implications and health-related material that we are not allowed to discuss publicly to ensure the integrity of our investigation. There's also the safety aspect.
3:55 p.m.
Conservative
3:55 p.m.
NDP
Taylor Bachrach NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Thanks, Mr. Chair.
It seems that one option might be to engage in the subcommittee in good faith. If things go sideways and if there are parties or members at that subcommittee meeting who aren't engaging in good faith in this discussion of accommodations, then the subcommittee can go into a public meeting and have the remainder of the conversation in public. We do have that option at any time, to my understanding. It's not a debatable motion and it's in order at any time. Perhaps that would strike a balance.
It seems like there's a lack of trust, and some of that is probably warranted, given some of the games we've seen played by different sides of the table. Certainly our intention is to get through this and to have the witnesses testify and get answers for Canadians.
I do think that this conversation about accommodation has merit as an in camera conversation, given the sensitivity of the personal situation. If people show up and play politics, a motion to go public is always in order, and I would be happy to make that motion.
That's all.
3:55 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kelly McCauley
We're still debating Ms. Vignola's subamendment.
Go ahead, Mr. Kusmierczyk.
4 p.m.
Liberal
Irek Kusmierczyk Liberal Windsor—Tecumseh, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I just wanted to say, for those who are watching at home, that what oftentimes happens in committees is that while discussions are taking place and while an MP has the floor and is speaking and opining on various issues, discussions are taking place between staff members of the various parties. They're negotiating and discussing what could be a path forward, especially if there appears to be a Gordian knot that we're trying to undo. For those watching, discussion was taking place over the last couple of hours that we were here in discussion and we seem to have found a path forward.
This was something that was suggested by my colleagues. This path forward and this small change that we're requesting was suggested by the opposition members themselves. We seem to have found a path forward that we agree to.
The ultimate goal here is to see the witnesses. We've all said this. We're united in wanting to see the witnesses here before committee and speaking. The only thing we're asking is that when we're having discussions about what accommodations to bring forward in order to address their serious health concerns, we do so as a subcommittee. This is normal practice.
How many times have we had issues when, rather than discuss something, especially if there might be sensitive information at play, we ask the subcommittee to step forward and make a decision among themselves? I believe in our ability to do that, despite how cantankerous and rancorous the debates may be when the cameras are going. When the cameras are off, you see a tremendous collaboration and partnership.
This isn't something that's egregious. We're simply saying that if we're going to talk about health accommodations, health information and sensitive issues when it comes to somebody's health, let's do that at a subcommittee where we can have an open discussion and a debate.
My colleague MP Bachrach, who has joined us fairly recently, has always stepped forward with what are responsible, measured and thoughtful solutions for a path forward. This is what we have here.
Let's discuss those issues. If there is some kind of an impasse at subcommittee, my goodness, bring it forward into the light. I can tell you that from our position, we want to do everything we possibly can to come to an agreement, get the accommodations agreed to and have the witnesses come and testify.
Again, I don't understand the spirit that Mr. Barrett is trying to interject here into these discussions when we seem to be approaching consensus, collaboration and an opportunity to move this forward and get the witnesses here before the committee, which is our ultimate goal. I don't understand the motivations of my colleague here. I really truly don't.
I've been on the OGGO committee now for over four years. It was worked in the spirit of collaboration. It has done the people's business, and I don't understand the spirit here that my colleague is trying to interject into what is traditionally a collaborative committee that works hard and gets work done.
There are no games on our side. Let's talk about accommodation and let's do what we can to get the witnesses to testify at this committee, which is what we all want to do. I just want to clarify that again. I want to thank yet again—I think it bears repeating—Madame Vignola for setting the table for this and for doing the hard work in the last couple of days to bring this forward.
It is a sensible subamendment, and at the same time we're trying to introduce a sensible UC motion that simply allows us to talk about accommodations and health in the proper forum and move forward on this.
That's it from my end. I'm going to turn things over now to my colleague.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
4 p.m.
Liberal
Jenica Atwin Liberal Fredericton, NB
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Just in the interest of time and maybe coming to a final negotiation here, if we don't send it to the subcommittee, then the committee can decide, and implementation would fall to you, Mr. Chair. Would that be more agreeable to my colleague Mr. Barrett?
4:05 p.m.
Conservative
4:05 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kelly McCauley
Thank you, Ms. Atwin. We should have had you speak out three hours ago.
4:05 p.m.
Liberal
Majid Jowhari Liberal Richmond Hill, ON
On that point of order, whether it's the subcommittee or whether it's in the committee as a whole, this will be in camera, so we can talk about all of those things freely. Is that correct?
4:05 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kelly McCauley
Ms. Atwin, what are you suggesting? Can you confirm to Mr. Jowhari what you were suggesting?
4:05 p.m.
Liberal
Jenica Atwin Liberal Fredericton, NB
Again, because it's the accommodations for a sensitive health concern, I guess I made the assumption that it would be in camera. Hopefully, that's still agreeable for my colleague.
4:05 p.m.
Conservative
Michael Barrett Conservative Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON
The difference, of course, is that the full committee has the ability to move in camera and back into public proceedings as necessary, so if there's information that can only be dealt with in camera, then it ought to be dealt with there. However, if there's information that's just logistical in nature and if there's consensus that it would be dealt with only in public and we agree that the chair will report out of any in camera meeting we have, then that satisfies the transparency and the protection of any personal information.
4:05 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kelly McCauley
That's with the assumption that the actual meeting with GC Strategies is in public, as I think Mr. Kusmierczyk stated.
Mr. Sousa, do you have your hand up, sir? No. Okay.
Can we suspend for a couple of minutes? I'll just make sure that the clerk has properly documented what we seem to agree to.
We'll suspend for a couple of seconds.