I would argue—
Evidence of meeting #14 for National Defence in the 43rd Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was witnesses.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Evidence of meeting #14 for National Defence in the 43rd Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was witnesses.
A recording is available from Parliament.
3:20 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Karen McCrimmon
I know. Look, Mr. Bezan, I'm not....
I really dislike the way we're going through this—
3:20 p.m.
Conservative
James Bezan Conservative Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB
That aside, Madam Chair, we do have a situation where the amendment that was passed could have been passed on two different fronts, not on one or the other. So it's not fair of the clerks, or procedurally correct, in my mind, that they can just rule this as out of order since the decision was already taken. We voted on an amendment that was two parts, both time and names.
With that said, I am specializing this. Since we are dealing with a motion that is adding names of witnesses to appear before the committee, I'm adding those witnesses whose names I just read into the record.
3:25 p.m.
Conservative
Cheryl Gallant Conservative Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I'm wondering why Mr. Garrison's motion is in order, given the amendments that were made to the main motion.
3:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Karen McCrimmon
The main motion was in order. I never ruled it out of order. It was just a caution.
3:25 p.m.
Conservative
Cheryl Gallant Conservative Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON
But the amendment said no names, and now Mr. Garrison has introduced a name. I just don't know, from a procedural standpoint, how you can have a motion that essentially says no names and then add another motion that adds names.
3:25 p.m.
Conservative
3:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Karen McCrimmon
It's not what I would like to see happen. I get it. But people....
Just stand by for a minute.
[Technical difficulty—Editor] anybody else the committee deems appropriate. So I do believe that the amended motion leaves room for what Mr. Garrison wants to see happen. It just doesn't name someone by name.
3:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Karen McCrimmon
No. The amended main motion would allow calling the witness that Mr. Garrison wants to call, because it says, “and any other witnesses the Committee deems necessary”. I'm not sure we need this second motion, but it is a member's right to put a motion forward if they wish.
We'll hear from Madame Vandenbeld, Mr. Garrison and then Mr. Bezan.
3:25 p.m.
Liberal
Anita Vandenbeld Liberal Ottawa West—Nepean, ON
Madam Chair, just on a procedural note, I do believe we have Mr. Garrison's motion, and that needs to be dealt with before another motion comes forward.
3:25 p.m.
Conservative
3:25 p.m.
Liberal
Anita Vandenbeld Liberal Ottawa West—Nepean, ON
All right, in that case I just want to reiterate that I think members who have one or two key priority witnesses—and I have some myself that I would like to submit, but I am not going to be putting a whole slew of names forward in this forum—will see those witnesses called.
I do think this is not a very good procedure to go by. Having said that, I think we can go individually on these motions.
Just to the point that Mr. Bezan made, I think we should be doing the motions in a different forum, perhaps a steering committee meeting, so that we can discuss individual people's names, not in public. That does not mean the names that were mentioned previously by Mr. Bezan and others wouldn't be called as witnesses, because if they prioritize those, I would imagine they would be called.
I don't think all this discussion today is necessary, because we will be calling those witnesses anyway.
3:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Karen McCrimmon
Mr. Bezan....
Mr. Garrison, I thought you weren't ready.
Go ahead, Mr. Garrison, and then Mr. Bezan.
3:25 p.m.
NDP
Randall Garrison NDP Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC
Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
I think we're dealing with something different here. I do agree with our normal procedure for selecting witnesses, but that's not the procedure we follow for inviting government officials, and particularly ministers.
My reason for naming the former minister of defence follows that precedent. We don't say that parties will decide whether or not we call the ministers responsible, so I think this is a different situation because Mr. Kenney is a former member of Parliament and a former minister of defence. He is not a private individual. I quite agree with the members who are arguing that we normally discuss witnesses in an in camera meeting, but when it comes to government officials and those who are or were responsible to Parliament, I think that's a different category, and that's the reason I moved a separate motion.
I am supportive of Mr. Bezan's arguments that the same applies to those public servants who handle the vetting and complaints process, but as the chair has ruled, the committee has decided that point, so I would urge committee members to simply support this motion to invite Premier Kenney.
3:25 p.m.
Conservative
James Bezan Conservative Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB
I will finalize this if nobody else puts their hand up.
This decision that we're talking about is a separate motion and a separate decision. It's based upon naming witnesses for our committee study. Premier Kenney is no longer a parliamentarian, so he would be appearing as an individual and he should be extended the same courtesy.
Absent that, we need to then [Technical difficulty—Editor].
3:30 p.m.
Liberal
Sherry Romanado Liberal Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne, QC
On a point of order, Madam Chair, we can no longer hear Mr. Bezan.
3:30 p.m.
Liberal
3:30 p.m.
Conservative
James Bezan Conservative Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB
I'm not sure what happened here, but I am sorry about that.
I was just saying that since Premier Kenney is no longer a parliamentarian, he is an individual who should be invited and not put into a motion like this. If we're going to go down this route, this is a separate decision from the one we made previously; that one is based on doing the study, and this one is based on a witness list. I believe I am in order in bringing forward this motion to add the names that I just presented.
These are people, as Mr. Garrison just pointed out, who are definitely part of the complaints and the vetting process that took place and the investigation of the allegation, so we need to hear from them first, before we even have the minister here. That's why I think that needs to be part of this motion, so we can get the committee work started now and not wait until we have a steering committee and then determine who is on the witness list and then schedule the meetings after the fact. We are working on a time frame now of February 26, so we have only two weeks of meetings to make this happen.
Madam Chair, I implore you to let us vote on this with the amendment.
3:30 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Karen McCrimmon
So you are putting forward an amendment to Mr. Garrison's motion. That is correct.
We'll be voting on that amendment first, and then after we vote on the amendment, we'll be voting on the main motion.
Stand by.
3:30 p.m.
Liberal
Anita Vandenbeld Liberal Ottawa West—Nepean, ON
Madam Chair, just for clarification, we are now voting on Mr. Bezan's amendment right now. Is that the case?