Procedure and House Affairs Committee on March 7th, 2023

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

I'm just going to make my comments first, and then perhaps Mr. Julian will see as a friendly amendment or subamendment to his amendment removing the words “by herself”. It is customary for there to be officials present when a witness like the chief of staff appears, so I would just ask Mr. Julian whether he would accept that as a friendly amendment. If not, then I could explain a little further why and would perhaps then formally move a subamendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Would you like to answer, Mr. Julian?

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Well, we'd be removing the word “alone”. It's superfluous.

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

But there are two words, on either side of the request.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Yes, it kept repeating.

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

It says, “to appear alone”. You removed that and then “for a minimum of two hours” and that is followed by “by herself”. I don't know why it was ever worded that way, but I guess somebody really wanted to make that emphasis, that she be alone and be by herself at the same time.

I think both should be removed.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

So, Mr. Julian, would you like to accept that as a friendly amendment or do you not see it as a friendly amendment?

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

We've removed the word “alone”. I think that's sufficient for what Ms. Sahota is speaking about.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Ms. Sahota is suggesting that if we have her come by herself she will not be able to have her officials with her, and she is suggesting that it would be more customary for someone to appear with officials.

You are suggesting you want her by herself and not with officials.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

We have taken out “alone”, and it's for a minimum of two hours. I don't see that as instructing her not to be with officials. Officials would be sitting behind. She's consulting with them. That is normal practice at committee.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

I think there's a difference between officials sitting behind versus being at the table with you to be able to consult. I think that's the nuance.

Mrs. Sahota.

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

So if removing “by herself” is not seen as a friendly amendment, perhaps I can suggest adding more words to say she may or may not be accompanied by officials? I think it would be easier just to remove the “by herself”. If you're not opposed to officials coming then that is...she would be here. I think the whole point, at the end of the day, is to have Katie Telford appear. That is what we've been talking about for a long time. We're making progress on making that happen and so now it seems a little bit silly that we're struggling with this wording.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

I'm just going to go back to Mr. Julian, before I go to Ms. Romanado.

Mr. Julian, it's your amendment. Do you see that as a friendly one or not? It's okay either way.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

I see with this amendment that officials could accompany her, and she could consult with them. That is something that happens at committee.

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

Okay, then I'll move a subamendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

If I could use the conversation the clerk and I just had.... It's a public meeting. If the deputy is in the room and somebody asks a question, and she says, “My deputy is in the room, if you would like the deputy to elaborate”, it's a public meeting, so technically you could bring them to answer that question. If the person really wants the answer, the deputy could.... We'd have to just agree to it. If the person doesn't want the answer from the deputy, then that, I think, speaks to the person who doesn't want the answer from the deputy.

Am I perhaps being too logical? I don't know. Ms. Sahota looks concerned.

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

No, I think it's good that we're having this conversation. It clarifies things. I like the perspective you're giving and the reassurance that Mr. Julian seems to be providing, that his intention is not to exclude officials from the meeting. As long as they're not excluded from being present....

Am I correct in assuming, Mr. Julian, that that's not your intention?

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

I think the way the chair just spelled it out is exactly what the committee would understand as well.

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

Okay, thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Mrs. Romanado, go ahead.

[Sherry Romanado, Liberal, Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Actually, I was going to ask for the same clarity from Mr. Julian, in terms of whether Ms. Telford would like to have officials with her. We've already had that conversation, though, so that's fine. Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Thank you for clarifying that.

Mr. Fergus, go ahead.

[Greg Fergus, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

This is just on the point of clarity, and then I will move on, but just to understand what Mr. Julian's understanding is, and perhaps what all members' understanding is as well. If Ms. Telford is here with officials and it's a public meeting, they can be here. I get that. For my purposes, would they have name tags and be sitting at the table so I could at least know who they are and the roles they play?

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

What I would suggest is that if, let's say, the witness were to say, “I would like my officials to be able to elaborate” and the member was satisfied with that, yes, somebody would come and bring them a name tag, because they'd be at the table to answer the question. They can't answer it from the back, so the minute they are seated at the table, yes, there will be a name in front of them.

I wasn't sure if you wanted to say something back.

[Greg Fergus, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Good luck to the clerks on having name tags prepared and ready to bring up to the table. Good luck as well to the analysts in perhaps providing us with a bit of background beforehand, as they normally do.