National Defence Committee on Feb. 9th, 2021

[The Chair, Liberal, Karen McCrimmon]

Go ahead, Ms. Vandenbeld.

[Anita Vandenbeld, Liberal, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

Madam Chair, I have a question of procedure.

If a witness is voted down in this committee, does that then preclude that witness from being able to be entertained if it comes forward as a witness from an individual member?

If that's case, Madam Chair, I really think that this whole procedure we're going through, where we're voting up and down different witnesses, is actually very unfair, because what that will lead to is a number of witnesses that might be voted down just because we think that procedurally it's incorrect, in which case, if they were put forward by the member, those witnesses would likely be called.

I don't think we're all in a position today to be saying yes or no to individual witnesses. I'd much prefer that parties submit those names and then leave it open for those witnesses to be able to be called.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karen McCrimmon]

Thanks for making this a very interesting afternoon.

I'm going to have to rule the suggested amendment out of order. There's nothing—

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

Madam Chair, can you quote where in the Standing Orders or in the rules and procedures for the House of Commons, in the third edition, it says that this would be out of order?

[The Chair, Liberal, Karen McCrimmon]

If I could finish.... But there's nothing stopping the members from putting those names forward as witnesses, and we will do what we've always done. We will do our very best to get your priority witnesses. There is some.... It's not hard and fast, perhaps, but I don't think it closes the door either if we were to.... We do not need to accept Mr. Garrison's motion in order to invite Mr. Kenney. We do not need to accept Mr. Bezan's original motion in order to invite the people who were on that list.

It doesn't close any doors, but if we voted against something earlier, then I don't think we can go back and vote and use those same names and that same...again.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

At the same time, Madam Chair, the motion was very clearly in two parts in the previous motion. This is a separate motion that follows up on determining witness lists. We already have a motion tabled by Mr. Garrison that I've amended and that I believe is in order.

Unless you can quote where in the Standing Orders as it applies to committees—not to the House—and also where in chapter 20 of the rules and procedures of the House of Commons, in the third edition, it says that this motion would be ruled out of order, as the decision we previously took....

We are masters of our own domain at committee, so I would say that we should vote on it, as we are in Mr. Garrison's motion, unless Mr. Garrison is going to withdraw his motion and the amendment is withdrawn as well.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karen McCrimmon]

Go ahead, Mr. Spengemann.

[Sven Spengemann, Liberal, Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

You mentioned earlier that on the advice of the clerk, this amendment would be out of order and had been dealt with previously. I suspect that it's partly because Mr. Garrison's motion really is talking about an entirely different time frame. It's talking about Jason Kenney as “the Minister of Defence who originally appointed General Vance”. Then we have a run-on of names that were dealt with in a previous amendment, that are chronologically completely out of step.

With your indulgence, Madam Chair, I'd like to hear from the clerk his thoughts as to why this is out of order.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karen McCrimmon]

Just a second....

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Madam Chair, I don't understand something on procedure. Are we talking about a study and two separate motions on witnesses, or are we talking about two separate studies? I just can't see how on the one side you can put on paper that we're naming a witness, but then the other witnesses that another party wants to name are disallowed. I just don't see how they match or are congruent. If they're two separate studies they would be, but if they're all the same study, you can't give one party naming at this point and the other not.

I don't understand why the second motion is in order if it pertains to the same study that we're going to do.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karen McCrimmon]

Madame Gallant, thank you for that. This is exactly why I do not like this practice of naming witnesses in motions. It adds this additional layer of complexity to an issue that's already complex enough. I don't disagree with what you're saying. It's trying to find that....

I think where we are now is that we'll be able to call whatever witnesses we want. We do not need them to be specified in the motion. When we do specify witnesses in the motion, this is where we end up. We end up evaluating each individual witness, pro and con, and it makes it really very difficult to do. So I'm not inclined to support motions that....

If it's in order, it's in order. If it's out of order, it's out of order. It's not quite clear here. I mean, the practice of the House kind of guides us, but I must admit to being reluctant to....

If it's a valid motion, it's a valid motion, and we'll deal with it, but I don't want to see this encourage future behaviour in the design of motions so that we end up tied up in knots instead of being able to do it the way we've done it for the last few months. I think we've done a good job. People have put witnesses forward in good faith, and in good faith we've gone out and gotten them. It's not pure, but it's definitely something that needs to be taken into account.

I will let the clerk read what he was working on.

Go ahead, Mr. Clerk.

[The Clerk]

Thank you.

Chapter 12 in House of Commons Procedure and Practice, under “A Decision Once Made Must Stand”, reads as follows:

A decision once made cannot be questioned again but must stand as the judgment of the House. Thus, for example, if a bill or motion is rejected, it cannot be revived in the same session, although there is no bar to a motion similar in intent to one already negatived but with sufficient variance to constitute a new question. This is to prevent the time of the House being used in the discussion of motions of the same nature with the possibility of contradictory decisions being arrived at in the course of the same session.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karen McCrimmon]

All right. Thank you, everyone.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

I would just say that applies to the House, but not necessarily to committees, which are governed under chapter 20.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karen McCrimmon]

Go ahead, Mr. Dowdall. Then we'll have Mr. Spengemann.

[Terry Dowdall, Conservative, Simcoe—Grey, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I just want to say that, sitting in this meeting here, the reason we get into a bit of trouble—whether it's here or whether it's the current government—is the fact of inconsistencies. What I'm hearing here and what my colleague said earlier today was something to the effect that they don't agree with it: “We don't do it this way, but I would vote for it.” This just doesn't bode well.

I would suggest to the chair that they are very similar. They are very consistent, so, as a committee, if we want to stay and be professional, the onus is on us to make sure that we make a consistent call on this here. Quite frankly, if Mr. Garrison's motion holds true, I don't know how you—or anyone, for that matter—can come to the consensus that some other party, no matter which party it is, can bring somebody forward in the same way. I just implore all the members here to remember that consistency is the number one thing.

I don't really see a big difference, and I believe what you're saying, Madam Chair, that if at any time a member wanted to request that somebody come, all of us on this committee would do that. I'm just concerned that if we're not following what we normally would consistently do, we may find ourselves with a bit of a problem.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karen McCrimmon]

Mr. Spengemann is next, please, and then Mr. Brunelle-Duceppe.

[Sven Spengemann, Liberal, Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Just to repeat, we're talking about two very different things. Mr. Garrison's motion is about an entirely different time period. We have dealt with the witnesses that Mr. Bezan put forward previously, and I would ask you, Madam Chair, on the advice of the clerk, to sustain the ruling that this amendment is out of order.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

That's a decision that only the chair can make.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karen McCrimmon]

Mr. Brunelle-Duceppe, you may go ahead.

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I think—

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

On a point of order, did Mr. Spengemann just move a motion that would challenge the chair on her decision?

[The Chair, Liberal, Karen McCrimmon]

Mr. Spengemann, do you want to respond to Mr. Bezan?

[Sven Spengemann, Liberal, Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON]

I don't think it's necessary to respond, Madam Chair. I would simply say that my point was that, on the advice of the clerk we heard, this amendment is out of order. I would ask you to consider ruling to sustain that advice in the form of a ruling that the amendment is out of order.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karen McCrimmon]

Thank you.