Evidence of meeting #31 for Public Safety and National Security in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was information.
A video is available from Parliament.
2:35 p.m.
Liberal
Gary Anandasangaree Liberal Scarborough—Rouge Park, ON
Yes, Mr. Chair.
We're essentially just asking that the “Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada and his officials” be deleted from the motion.
2:35 p.m.
Liberal
2:35 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Jim Carr
Okay, now we open a discussion on the amendment.
I have two hands up.
Mr. Noormohamed, I think you were first.
2:35 p.m.
Liberal
Taleeb Noormohamed Liberal Vancouver Granville, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I would agree with Mr. Anandasangaree. For all the reasons that have been articulated and outlined, I think it's very important for us to remember the role of the Attorney General of Canada in these deliberations and discussions and what his role is or is not. I think adding him to this conversation is just a bit of a red herring. It not only does not add value; I think it detracts from the important work this committee is trying to do.
I would certainly be in favour of removing his name from this list of witnesses.
2:35 p.m.
NDP
Alistair MacGregor NDP Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC
Thank you, Chair.
I'm okay with keeping the minister's name in there. It does make reference to his officials, who would probably be in a better place to respond to specific questions.
It's been well documented in the media that the most valuable four pages of Superintendent Campbell's notes, which of course have led to this committee meeting being held, were somehow delayed in getting out into the public, so I do think there is value in hearing from the Department of Justice.
My only other quibble with the motion—and it's a minor one—is just the wording “no later than Wednesday, August 31” of this year. We're all pretty busy in our constituencies these days, so I would just ask if maybe we, as a committee, could come down to some kind of specificity, so we can plan our weeks in August accordingly and not just leave it wide open up until the 31st.
That's my only point there, Mr. Chair.
2:40 p.m.
The Clerk
Mr. Chair, if I can just interject here, that would be a second amendment to the motion, so perhaps we should deal with the first amendment. Then we can deal later on with the August 31 deadline, just to keep everything in order.
2:40 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Jim Carr
Okay, so we're dealing with the proposed amendment that would remove the Department of Justice. We've heard several opinions. Do we have any other hands up?
2:40 p.m.
The Clerk
Yes. In the room we have Mr. Fergus and Ms. Dancho.
2:40 p.m.
Liberal
Greg Fergus Liberal Hull—Aylmer, QC
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
The reason I think it is important to remove the name of the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada and the reference to officials from the motion is because our time is limited. Today, in fact, I would have preferred to continue to ask questions of the witnesses, because I know this committee will be sitting again.
The minister is just going to say what Mr. Anandasangaree already outlined: the decision was not his, but that of his officials. So we will waste five or seven minutes if we insist on asking him questions, because he will repeat the same thing.
As for the officials, considering the explanations they gave after Nova Scotia RCMP Superintendent Campbell's notes were released, I can think a number of other people who could give more interesting and enlightening explanations for Canadians and certainly for parliamentarians.
It is simply for the sake of efficiency that I propose to question only the witnesses on the rest of the list. That way we will get a lot of clarification about what happened between the two RCMP offices.
2:40 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Jim Carr
Thank you, but we're debating an amendment to the motion on the floor.
Ms. Dancho, you're next on the list.
2:40 p.m.
Conservative
Raquel Dancho Conservative Kildonan—St. Paul, MB
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I wanted to mention to Mr. MacGregor regarding his concern timewise that I agree. That's why I put something that gives us over a month. I thought the leads on each party could always discuss this with the knowledge of their colleagues' calendars and we can settle on a date. I just think we should be meeting before Parliament resumes. Again, we're looking to make this so that all parties can agree on it.
I'm wondering if the Liberals have any other objections aside from the Minister of Justice and his officials attending.
2:40 p.m.
Liberal
2:40 p.m.
The Clerk
We have Ms. Damoff here, who would like to speak.
2:40 p.m.
Liberal
Pam Damoff Liberal Oakville North—Burlington, ON
Chair, I was going to say exactly what you said. Let's deal with the amendment on the floor, which is whether the Minister of Justice and Attorney General comes, and then we can deal with other issues that we may or may not have.
2:40 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Jim Carr
Yes, we're going to have to deal with them one at a time.
Clerk, are there any other hands up to deal with the amendment?
2:40 p.m.
The Clerk
There's Ms. Michaud.
2:40 p.m.
Bloc
Kristina Michaud Bloc Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I would like to ask my colleague, Mr. Perkins, for some clarification.
Mr. Perkins, I'm sorry to put you on the spot. But when the mics were off, you told me that it may have been the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada who decided that these documents needed to be released. I don't know if you can answer my open mic question.
To your knowledge, could this have been his decision, not that of his officials?
2:40 p.m.
Conservative
Rick Perkins Conservative South Shore—St. Margarets, NS
I can answer. I was a ministerial assistant for almost eight years, so I know that the release of documents to a public inquiry and commission would not be made solely at the official level. It would go into the minister's office for final approval, without question.