Evidence of meeting #133 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 software.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Conservative
Liberal
Ali Ehsassi Liberal Willowdale, ON
I am proposing, first of all, just to refine it somewhat, that for the documents that have to be provided to the members, we extend that from 14 days to 30 days. That would be the first aspect of my subamendment.
On the second one, I understand that Ms. Vignola has proposed that we hear from relevant witnesses. That makes eminent sense. However, I was wondering if in the interest of assisting the members all the members would agree to send in the names of those witnesses and for the deadline to be August 12. So it would be adding relevant witnesses and submitting those witnesses by the members by the deadline of August 12.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kelly McCauley
Speaking on the subamendment, we do have a rule, for lack of a better word, in the committee that our witnesses will be based on the percentage of the parties. It's a pretty straightforward amendment there. The 12th seems pretty straightforward as well.
Does anyone wish to speak on the subamendment? The other issue that Mr. Ehsassi has brought up is just the date of the documents.
Mrs. Vignola.
Bloc
Julie Vignola Bloc Beauport—Limoilou, QC
I thank my colleague for his suggestions.
As far as the witness list is concerned, we don't usually put that in our motions. Instead, we wait until the end of the meeting to determine when we will submit the list of witnesses. Having said that, August 12 is a reasonable date.
As far as the documents are concerned, if there's a 30‑day deadline, at best we will have them just in time for the first meeting with witnesses, or at worst, we may not have them at all and won't get the opportunity to read them and do a proper analysis. So, in my opinion, 30 days is too long for us to receive those documents.
I understand all the challenges with translation and interpretation and what that entails, but I don't like to go on a fishing expedition when I question a witness. I like to be able to base my thoughts on something tangible that I've been able to analyze. If I don't have the documents before the first meeting, I'll have to go fishing when asking the witnesses questions. After receiving the documents, I may realize that the answers were in the documents and that I could have asked better questions if I had had them beforehand. That would mean I wasted my time and the witnesses' time. At the end of the day, we'd also be wasting taxpayer funds, because they pay for the committees and for all the time we spend on this.
So, for efficiency reasons, I'm against this 30‑day deadline, because I need to read the documents before the meeting. Personally, I won't be able to support the subamendment. I'm sorry.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kelly McCauley
Does anyone else wish to speak on the subamendment? It sounds like the committee seems to be fine with the first part, which is the witnesses, but not with the second.
We can either just have a vote on the subamendment in its entirety or perhaps, if we're fine....
Mr. Ehsassi, go ahead.
Liberal
Ali Ehsassi Liberal Willowdale, ON
Again, thank you, Mr. Chair.
I had an opportunity to listen to Ms. Vignola. I certainly understand and appreciate full well her concern. However, I don't think it would make sense for us to run the possible risk of not providing the department ample opportunity within 14 days to provide those documents. God forbid, should that not prove possible, we would find ourselves in a very precarious position. I really do think 30 days would make more sense, because the department would not run over the 30 days prior to the next meeting of the committee, but that's just an observation on my part.
Conservative
Bloc
Julie Vignola Bloc Beauport—Limoilou, QC
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
I also understand what my colleague Mr. Ehsassi is saying. I try to find compromises as much as possible. So I'm trying to find a happy medium that can satisfy everyone around the table, while taking into account the reality of public servants, interpreters, and so on.
I would propose a friendly subamendment and change it from 30 days to 21 days. That way, we could meet in the middle.
What do you say?
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kelly McCauley
Thanks. I'm seeing nods around the table, but I do have Mr. Barrett who wishes to speak on the subamendment.
Conservative
Michael Barrett Conservative Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON
On the motion, I have a question for clarification. I want to ensure that the proposal with respect to witnesses.... It just needs to be clearly understood by everyone that this is in addition to the witnesses who are prescribed in the motion. I need to understand that this isn't replacing it, because we don't have the subamendment in writing, and that the subamendment does not remove the named witnesses, those being the consul general, the deputy minister, named representatives from Supply Canada and Treasury Board and the minister of global affairs. Those witnesses need to still be included. I need to understand if that's what we're voting on.
Further, if the meetings are to be held between the 19th and 27th, whatever the date is that is being proposed—21 or 15—we need to have an assurance through you, Mr. Chair, from the House that we're going to be able to have those documents translated for that first meeting of the committee. To Mrs. Vignola's original point, the documents need to be in our hands in both official languages prior to the opening of the window for these meetings to occur, and I need to just get some clarity that the named witnesses, in addition to the proposal for the submission of additional witnesses, remain, and that's in addition to those witnesses.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kelly McCauley
On the first question, if we set 21 days as the 14th by, say, noon, we should.... I don't think it's a lot of documents, but you never know. I can't say with absolute certainty, but it's probable, because I cannot imagine it's a lot. Being summer, I don't think there are a lot of requests going into the Translation Bureau right now, so it's not a certainty.
On your second question, you have the same understanding as I do, but Mr. Ehsassi can chime in. It's just to provide the witnesses by x date. It's not to replace these witnesses, but for the parties to provide witnesses by, as I think you said, the 12th.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kelly McCauley
But it's not replacing witnesses noted in the.... Was that your intent?
Liberal
Ali Ehsassi Liberal Willowdale, ON
No, it wasn't, but to the best of my understanding, it currently reads, “other relevant witnesses submitted by members”.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kelly McCauley
We're clear on the second part about the witnesses.
Regarding receiving the documents and the translation, it's always difficult. We can't guarantee it, because I don't know how many documents are going to arrive. If 5,000 pages arrive, just to exaggerate, within 14 days, they're not going to get translated whether we say 14 days or 21 days. However, there's not a lot going into the Translation Bureau right now, so I think we probably should be fine with that, assuming they're not taking vacations. I would assume so, but nothing's a guarantee and we wouldn't be able to guarantee if it was the 14th anyways, or we wouldn't be able to guarantee if it was 31 days or 30 days, as was originally proposed.
Conservative
Michael Barrett Conservative Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON
Is it for the 14th? Is that what we're saying now?
Conservative
Conservative
Michael Barrett Conservative Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON
It's the 14th. Okay.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kelly McCauley
I'm sensing we're okay with that. We cannot do it as a friendly amendment, but we can adopt Mrs. Vignola's suggestion by UC. Just to be clear, I'll have the clerk read back what the subamendment will be, bringing in Mr. Ehsassi's comments on the witness date and the date of the documents.
The Clerk of the Committee Mr. Alexandre (Sacha) Vassiliev
The subamendment is to add, after the words “to produce within 21 days of the adoption of this motion” and after the other witnesses, “that other relevant witnesses to be submitted by the parties by August 12”.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kelly McCauley
That's straightforward. Is everyone clear on that? We'll consider the subamendment adopted.
(Subamendment agreed to)
We will now go back to the original amendment, which, if you recall, is—