Evidence of meeting #76 for Procedure and House Affairs in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was report.
A recording is available from Parliament.
3:05 p.m.
NDP
Rachel Blaney NDP North Island—Powell River, BC
I haven't had my question answered from Mr. Turnbull, unless I completely missed it, and I apologize.
I do think it should be three hours. I don't think it should be lowered down to two hours.
3:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bardish Chagger
I think Mr. Turnbull responded in saying he's receptive to that.
Would you like to subamend that, or do we all want to agree that we want three hours instead of two hours?
I see heads nodding.
Ms. Blaney, do you have a preference? Do you want to subamend it, or can we—
3:05 p.m.
NDP
Rachel Blaney NDP North Island—Powell River, BC
I'm fine as long as it says three hours. If everybody agrees, then that's great.
3:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bardish Chagger
Would you like to subamend it, Mr. Turnbull, or would you like to make your—
3:05 p.m.
Liberal
3:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bardish Chagger
For the record, where Mr. Turnbull mentioned the Right Honourable David Johnston for “two hours”, it actually is “three hours”, just to make sure we're all in the same conversation. The number of hours is not changing. What is changing is that we reinvite the Right Honourable David Johnston to appear. If that is not received, then we look at the next step of summoning the Right Honourable David Johnston.
I will be honest with you. I don't think it will come to that. Based on the email chain that I just reviewed, he is very receptive to appearing. It seems like we have a date and we can make this work. We'll have to work on making sure the hours are available. I'm sure there are many people watching this meeting, so know that committee members are making their points as to why that would be relevant.
It's Mr. Berthold, and then I have Mr. Barrett.
3:05 p.m.
Conservative
Luc Berthold Conservative Mégantic—L'Érable, QC
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I'd like to make another argument for hearing from Mr. Johnston as early as next week.
Madam Chair, you told us that you were preparing the appearances of several witnesses and ministers mentioned in Mr. Johnston's report. Before we hear from people who are going to testify about the Johnston report, I feel we need to talk to Mr. Johnston first. It just makes sense. Mr. Johnston's report is new this week. I don't see how we can continue our study on foreign interference when an important part of this has just been released, namely the special rapporteur's report. We can't wait 14 days. We can't have a full week of testimony on foreign interference by the Beijing regime without first hearing from Mr. Johnston.
You said that you had read an email exchange. I believe you could ask Mr. Johnston to appear as early as next week and he can assure you that he'll be with us for three hours. We don't need to summon him to appear, but we can't continue our work and hear from other witnesses without first hearing Mr. Johnston's version. That's fundamental as we continue our study.
Since we began the study, that is to say since November, the news has been coming in dribs and drabs. It feels like the special rapporteur pulled out a garden hose to share information with us. Before we ask questions of the other witnesses who will be appearing, first we must hear what Mr. Johnston has to say about the information and have him answer the questions we'll surely ask him about the information he says he can't disclose. I humbly urge my colleagues to think about that. Mr. Johnston must be one of the first witnesses we hear from if we want to do our job properly and ask questions of the other witnesses who will be called later on.
My message is for all parliamentarians. I understand that Mr. Johnston has already responded to the request to appear, but that was before he knew we wanted him to appear next week. If he is truly acting in good faith, he will tell us he's prepared to appear next week to talk about his report. I don't see why we would wait 14 days before we hear from him, when a number of witnesses are set to appear next week, based on available resources. If we need to invite them back because Mr. Johnston will have given us other relevant information about these witnesses, we will have done a week of work for nothing.
The next step is to hear from the special rapporteur, because his report raises a lot of questions for members of Parliament and the public. I want to emphasize that we can't afford to wait until June 6 or 9 to hear from Mr. Johnston. We absolutely need to hear from him next week.
May 25th, 2023 / 3:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bardish Chagger
First of all, it's not June 6 or 9; it's June 6. I've already sent that date.
Respectfully, as a person who is trying to chair this committee to get us to the work that we're trying to do, one day it's “let's get this done” and we have a great plan. One day it's that a question of privilege has been referred to this committee, and then we have to make that the priority. One day it isn't this and then this.
Next week, as per the motion that was moved by our colleague in this committee, which was supported, we asked for certain witnesses to come for a prescribed amount of time. That is very difficult when you are in these seats and when you are trying to make that work. Respectfully, I will say to you that, unless you're suggesting that we not meet until the Right Honourable David Johnston is coming to a meeting, the work we are doing is important and we need to take into consideration what we need to do to function as a committee and to make sure witnesses are present.
As I said, we had asked for Jody Thomas to appear for a prescribed number of hours. We're receiving confirmation. Now you're suggesting, based on that commentary, that we ask her to reschedule her appearance because we can't do anything until David Johnston appears. It is almost like suggesting that the question of privilege is no longer the priority, and now it's the Right Honourable David Johnston's report that is the priority.
I'm just trying to add this up in my head as to how I, as the chair of a committee that I think is very important and that is doing very important work, can keep the train on the tracks so that we can actually get some work done, but we keep going in circles with the comments I'm hearing as to who needs to go first.
We agreed to a list. We wanted witnesses to come. Now we're having a conversation that almost feels like “who's the most important person to come first”, and whatever else. I feel like I have done whatever I can to get us witnesses, but their schedules.... These are people, at the end of the day, and they have schedules. They are doing really important work, and it's almost like we want them to have full-time seats at the procedure and House affairs committee.
I'm just going to share my little comments on that, because we're doing a lot of confirming witnesses and then changing them around, which is not necessarily moving us forward.
I guess that gives Mr. Barrett some additional comments for when he speaks now.
Mr. Barrett, the floor is yours.
3:10 p.m.
Conservative
Michael Barrett Conservative Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON
Thanks, Chair. I appreciate your comments, so I won't expand on what's been offered. I just want to move us forward.
I have just shared a subamendment with the clerk, and it is that the amendment be amended by replacing “fourteen days” with “seven days”.
3:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bardish Chagger
I'm going to ask the clerk to circulate the subamendment that Mr. Barrett has just shared and make sure it's available.
Do you want to comment on it or just move the subamendment? You'll just move the subamendment and keep it there.
I am going to go to Mr. Fergus.
3:15 p.m.
Liberal
Greg Fergus Liberal Hull—Aylmer, QC
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I am certainly going to cut my colleague and friend a little slack, because while you were speaking to us, he was probably writing that subamendment, getting it in both languages and sending it to the clerk, so he might not have had time to incorporate what you just said to us: to try to treat people like people.
I am hoping he might see this as a friendly amendment and would consider this wording. Why doesn't he just change the wording to “that we invite the Right Honourable David Johnston at the earliest opportunity and no later than June 6”?
That way, Madam Chair, if we can get him here next week, that would be fabulous for the reason that it is important for us to be able to have him for those three hours and then to move on with our other witnesses. That would make sense, but it also treats people like people who are doing important work for our country, and it makes sure they can look at their schedules to try to find the best possible time that conveniences us as well as conveniences them.
I am hoping that might be some wording that my colleague would consider. I think that would probably be the best thing to take into account what I think you had just so rightly pointed out to us.
3:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bardish Chagger
Ms. Gaudreau, I see that you wish to speak, but I must first give the floor to Mr. Barrett. Then it will be your turn. Thank you.
Mr. Barrett, you have the floor.
3:15 p.m.
Conservative
Michael Barrett Conservative Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON
I appreciate the spirit of Mr. Fergus's suggestion, but I would like to leave it as is and would note for him, and for you, Madam Chair, that the subamendment doesn't relitigate the question of a summons versus an invitation. I think the invitation speaks to the proposed witness's availability.
I think this satisfies the concerns raised by Mr. Fergus and some of his colleagues with respect to the nature of a summons.
3:15 p.m.
Bloc
Marie-Hélène Gaudreau Bloc Laurentides—Labelle, QC
Madam Chair, I know it's not easy to juggle all the witness appearance dates, but the witnesses must certainly follow the news like we do. It's important to remember that we're acting in good faith. If we weren't so far along in the parliamentary calendar, we probably wouldn't be pushing so hard. Unfortunately, it's not February. We're really ready to get the information.
I'd like to ask the people watching us how they feel about us being able to ask questions on the 65‑page report tabled, so that we can ensure we have a healthy democracy and we're safe. As parliamentarians, we all want to keep the worst from happening. Given that parliamentary business is drawing to a close and we have only a few meetings left before the summer, I wonder why we would wait 14 days. I know it's complicated in terms of logistics, but at some point, we have no choice but to deal with urgent matters. I'm sure people understand that, and I'm sure they too would prefer that the witnesses appear after Mr. Johnston's three-hour appearance, because we'll be able to get some answers based on the questions we will have asked him.
I'm ready to vote. I still haven't been told why we absolutely need to wait 14 days just because June 6 has already been chosen. We know very well that, once the work has been done, it's time to disclose the results. So now that Mr. Johnston has completed his task and released his report, he should expect to receive a call fairly quickly. If I'm given a good argument that proves we're acting in good faith and that explains the basic reason why we have to extend this deadline until June 6 at the latest, I may accept it.
I would remind the House that we've reached the culmination of everything we've experienced these past few weeks. I truly don't feel uncomfortable calling someone who has worked for weeks on a report with a May 23 deadline. In my opinion, Mr. Johnston was expecting to be called very quickly to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. I feel this is a very important committee, and I hope all of my colleagues feel the same way.
I will close by saying that I'm convinced that the witnesses, who may be watching us, clearly understand that we might need to juggle the appearance dates again.
I'm ready to vote, but I see that others still want to speak.
3:20 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bardish Chagger
Thank you, Ms. Gaudreau.
Ms. Blaney still wants to speak, so we will hear what she has to say.
Ms. Blaney, you have the floor.
3:20 p.m.
NDP
Rachel Blaney NDP North Island—Powell River, BC
I have one question, and then I'm more than happy to vote. You talked quite at length, Chair, about the schedule that was already outlined.
Would you be sharing that with the committee, so I can better understand the concern?
3:20 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bardish Chagger
Yes. Actually, the clerk and I were scheduled to have a conversation about this today, but we are all together at PROC, so I can have it with the clerk in person rather than virtually. We are going to be laying out a calendar as to where we see things falling, so that members can be prepared.
As you all know, I have asked for extra resources for next week and the following week, so there will be extra meetings also taking place to satisfy as many appearances as possible. That's where we are, just trying to juggle several different things, because, as I mentioned earlier, it would be today that we would get the schedule for next week. We will have a better understanding as to which deviation requests were approved versus not approved today. That will provide us with the insights we need.
Please stay tuned. It will be coming to a computer screen near you very soon. Does that help?
Perfect. Thank you.
With that, my list has been exhausted. I'm calling the question on Mr. Barrett's subamendment.
(Subamendment negatived: nays 6; yeas 5)
We are back to Mr. Turnbull's amendment.
Are there any other comments on the amendment as not amended?
Ms. Blaney.
3:25 p.m.
NDP
Rachel Blaney NDP North Island—Powell River, BC
Could we get that read out one more time? That would be helpful.
3:25 p.m.
The Clerk of the Committee Mr. Michael MacPherson
In English, the amendment would basically be replacing section (a) of the motion. It would read:
(a) re-invite the Special Rapporteur, the Right Honourable David Johnston, to appear before the Committee, by himself, for three hours, no later than fourteen days following the adoption of this motion; and
