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.
3:45 p.m.
Bloc
Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe Bloc Lac-Saint-Jean, QC
I'd like to put an end to the debate. This isn't complicated: there is a difference between Mr. Garrison's motion and Mr. Bezan's. As a former minister, Mr. Kenney still has the title “The Honourable”, which puts him on the same level as Mr. Sajjan. Therefore, just as we agreed to name Mr. Sajjan as a witness, we support Mr. Garrison's motion. We could then proceed in order of priority for the other witnesses.
As for the procedure, I will leave that to you.
As I see it, there is a huge difference between the witnesses named in Mr. Bezan's motion and the one in Mr. Garrison's.
3:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Karen McCrimmon
Thank you, Mr. Brunelle-Duceppe.
Could you repeat that? We lost translation for the first two or three sentences.
3:50 p.m.
Bloc
Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe Bloc Lac-Saint-Jean, QC
I was saying that, as a former minister, Mr. Kenney still has the title “The Honourable”. The fact that he used to be in Mr. Sajjan's position puts him on the same level—hence why I support Mr. Garrison's motion over Mr. Bezan's.
Afterwards, the parties will each have an opportunity to put forward the witnesses they want to prioritize.
3:50 p.m.
Liberal
3:50 p.m.
Bloc
Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe Bloc Lac-Saint-Jean, QC
I think I made my point and everyone understood. Did they not?
3:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Karen McCrimmon
No, there is a problem with the interpretation.
Could you repeat what you said, please?
3:50 p.m.
Bloc
Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe Bloc Lac-Saint-Jean, QC
All right. I'll start over.
The reason we support Mr. Garrison's motion is that Mr. Kenney still has the title “The Honourable”, which puts him on the same level as Mr. Sajjan. All of us agreed to the motion referring to Mr. Sajjan by name. For the same reasons, I am in favour of Mr. Garrison's motion. To my mind, the two men are on the same level. Then, we could certainly name a hundred or so other witnesses, but I challenge you to find others styled as “The Honourable” who are connected to the matter. I don't think you can.
Now, we can start recommending the witnesses we want to prioritize to the chair. Every member of the committee will have an opportunity to put forward their choices.
Did everyone hear me that time?
3:50 p.m.
Liberal
Anita Vandenbeld Liberal Ottawa West—Nepean, ON
Thank you.
For some clarification, my understanding, Madam Chair, is that on the advice of the clerk you've ruled Mr. Bezan's amendment out of order because it was already debated and voted on previously in this committee meeting. It's not because of the nature of the witnesses, or the procedure, or even my own objections to the procedure that we're undergoing today—which I think has shown for itself why we don't do this—but because of a standing order.
Madam Chair, if that is your ruling, you should make it clear that it is your ruling. Then we can proceed with other amendments or other motions as they come to the floor.
I still think this is not a good process, but the reasoning on Mr. Bezan's amendment is not that we disagree with it or don't like the process. It's that it was already voted on.
3:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Karen McCrimmon
Exactly. Thank you for that.
I'm trying to be as fair as possible. Here you can see the dangers that arise when we incorporate witness names inside the motion. I believe I called the amendment to Mr. Garrison's motion, put forward by Mr. Bezan, out of order.
Now we move on and vote on Mr. Garrison's main motion.
I call on the clerk to do a recorded division.
(Motion agreed to: yeas 7; nays 0 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
3:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Karen McCrimmon
I just want to make it clear to everyone that this is exactly why I don't really think we need to include witness names in motions. We can discuss these things in a steering committee and come out with something that's very positive. This is a challenging thing to do, but remember that the original motion put forward by Mr. Bezan includes “any other witnesses the Committee deems necessary”.
Go ahead, Mr. Garrison.
3:55 p.m.
NDP
Randall Garrison NDP Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC
Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
I simply want to reiterate that I do not believe this is the way we should deal with normal witnesses. I moved a separate motion to invite Premier Kenney so that he's not being invited on a partisan basis as my witness to come to this committee, but as the former minister of defence who made the decision to hire a new chief of the defence staff, who at the time was accused of serious sexual misconduct.
This is not an ordinary witness. It is not a procedure that I favour for ordinary witnesses. This is someone who was responsible to Parliament at the time and who remains a former minister. That's why I think he deserves the courtesy of being invited by the committee as a whole and not being placed as an NDP witness, which is highly ironic.
Thank you.
3:55 p.m.
Liberal
Anita Vandenbeld Liberal Ottawa West—Nepean, ON
Madam Chair, will there be a deadline for us to submit our witness names?
3:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Karen McCrimmon
For this new one, probably.... How about Wednesday evening? This is a short order. Would that be acceptable to the committee, to send witness names to the clerk by close of business tomorrow, Wednesday? Then we will work with the IT people to schedule these meetings. We'll get back to you with what those options are.
Are there any further questions for today? All right.
The meeting is adjourned.