Notices of Meeting include information about the subject matter to be examined by the committee and date, time and place of the meeting, as well as a list of any witnesses scheduled to appear. The Evidence is the edited and revised transcript of what is said before a committee. The Minutes of Proceedings are the official record of the business conducted by the committee at a sitting.
Welcome to meeting number 15 of the Special Joint Committee on the Declaration of Emergency, created pursuant to the order of the House on March 2, 2022, and of the Senate on March 3, 2022.
Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format pursuant to the House and Senate orders. Should any technical difficulties arise, please advise me, as we may need to suspend for a few minutes to ensure that all members are able to fully participate.
Any witnesses should be aware that translation is available through the globe icon at the bottom of their screen.
We should note that today is a shorter meeting that will last for two hours, with a hard stop on our deliberations at 8:30. It's a business meeting, so, at this point in time, I'd like to open the floor.
Picking up on your introduction, I'd like to understand why today is a business meeting. The importance of hearing from witnesses was repeated again and again, and I don't believe it's a partisan issue. Everybody around this table agreed that we needed to get down to work.
The reality is that fully one-third of our meetings, six out of 15 meetings, were dedicated to committee business rather than getting down to the work that we were tasked with as a committee, and I find that very disappointing. I understand that a work plan was circulated today. I received it from the clerks. It is dated from May of the last session.
What is the current state of play for witnesses being scheduled? Would it be possible for the clerks to explain exactly why there were no witnesses available for what was scheduled as a three-hour witness meeting today?
I'll take your first question, which was directed, I believe, to the joint chairs, who have the power to set the agenda for the meetings. As we discussed in previous meetings, there have been challenges in getting the prioritized witnesses concurrent with the judicial review. We simply weren't getting co-operation from those witnesses on the lists, and we were having a difficult time finding prioritized witnesses for this evening's meeting.
On the second part, I'm happy to share that with the clerks, if they'd like to—
Before we get to the questions for the clerks, is it your understanding, Mr. Chair, that witnesses are not interested in coming to our committee, or are they unavailable due to the inquiry? I'd like to get a better sense.
With specificity, with regard to the witness we had lined up for today, somebody who is involved with the police service and obviously, to my understanding, with the incidents that occurred had required the attendance of many within the law enforcement community at a funeral. We did not want to impose on that or perhaps suggest that this committee would take precedence over that, honouring the tragedy that occurred.
We took the best course of action, which was to deal with ensuring that over the next six weeks, we have, in coordination with the judicial review, a schedule that is fulsome and one that is dedicated to witness lists that ensure that we can get to the business at hand.
Of course, at the conclusion of those six weeks, the ratio that you suggested, the one-third of meetings being set aside for committee business, would change dramatically. It would be in the course of our business, and we would be able to respond to many of the revelations and different dynamics that have been, I think, uncovered through the course of judicial review and the civil proceedings.
As you know, it's been very difficult to get co-operative witnesses at this committee to provide us with substantive answers, documents and many things this committee has been trying to get. As these other processes play out, it's our intention, through no fault of the clerks, to get the kind of scheduling that will have prioritized witnesses, which would make sense for the work plan.
Okay. I certainly appreciate that the RCMP and police forces would be unavailable this week, but there are, respectfully, 10 pages of witnesses, so perhaps the clerks can let us know what the plan is going forward.
That is the course of the business this evening, to set course on what the schedule is going to be on a prioritized basis for the next six weeks.
As it relates to the clerks, I'd like to note that Miriam, our usual clerk, is not here tonight. Mark is here, but the bulk of the planning work was between the two of them, so I don't necessarily want to put them on the spot. I'm happy to take responsibility as chair to let you know that we're having a business meeting tonight because that was the collective decision of the three chairs.
For this evening there were a number of witnesses called, police and others. When there were declamations when they didn't come, we then went to the joint chairs to ask for a meeting. There was a meeting between the joint chairs, and that's when it was decided to have a business meeting tonight to go forward on that.
There were a number of witnesses called. There was one confirmed for this evening, Mr. Bordeleau, but the decision was made that one witness wouldn't have stood alone. It was the decision of the joint chairs to cancel that witness and then to have a business meeting.
Going forward I certainly hope that when the committee decides it will hear from a certain witness the following week, if there are extraneous circumstances we would automatically go to this very long witness list and see who could come in order to maximize our time here. It seems to me that we have limited ourselves to a very small number of witnesses for tonight and here we are finding that we have two hours of committee business. I will let the chair proceed with this meeting, and I will reserve comment.
I just want to express my support for the decisions of the joint chair with respect to the agenda tonight. To facilitate a candid conversation, I would move that for the purpose of discussing witnesses and the committee's work plan, we move in camera.
It was a business meeting, as identified on the agenda. If there's any confusion around the notice of agenda I would just ask you to reflect back on that notice. We had Senator Harder's intervention, and now we have Mr. Fortin.
I tabled two notices of motion, which were distributed this week and which all members received in both official languages.
I'll quickly read the first motion about the redacted documents:
WHEREAS, many of the documents produced in response to the motion adopted on May 31, 2022, for the production of all security assessments and legal opinions which the government relied upon to justify the declaration of emergency on February 15, 2022, have been extensively redacted;
IT IS AGREED that each department, person, and/or agency that produced documents with redacted portions be required to provide the Committee with an unredacted version of those documents, or an explanation of the grounds for each redaction, within10 days of the adoption of this motion.
I can't see the point of discussing it any further. The motion speaks for itself. I believe it's important for us to have complete documents. If that's not possible, then I'd like to know why.
My view on this motion is I'm not opposed to it, but I think we should be realistic as to what our expectations ought to be. I think it is unusual and perhaps a step too far to ask officials to come with unredacted documents. Those documents are by definition secure and classified. I have no objection to having them come and speak to the redaction, but I can't imagine that they would come and table unredacted documents, and I doubt that they would be coming here to say, “We made a mistake with respect to the redactions and are prepared to provide greater unredaction.”
I'm not opposed to the motion. I just want us not to build up expectations in our minds or anybody else's that there wasn't due consideration given by officials to the redaction process.
For those of you who have ever been in a situation in a court where there are redacted documents, there's generally always the expectation that the explanation for those redactions is included in the actual redaction. There is usually a table that says, “It may have been redacted for reason A,” and reason A is laid out in another document, a piece of paper, which says it's because of whatever source information, from my experience, or whatever it might be.
It's reasonable to have a motion like this, in those cases where redactions are done, in order to provide an explanation as to why they were redacted, and the grounds for them. As Senator Harder said, we can certainly ask for unredacted documents. That's certainly the expectation this committee had, but we understand there might be some limitations there.
With respect to this point on Monsieur Fortin's motion, I just heard the intervention from Senator Harder. I would indicate that if people are to be arriving and explaining the redactions they've made, that's one issue, but to arrive with unredacted portions being provided to the committee is not something I would deem to be suitable or advisable; rather, it's just having the person attending.
I would move an amendment to the motion, to read, “that each department, person and/or agency that produced documents with redacted portions be required to appear before the committee and provide an explanation of the grounds for each redaction”.
I am removing only the words “with an unredacted version of those documents”.
With respect, Mr. Chair, even though the point made by our colleague Mr. Virani is a good one, I don't think his amendment would accomplish anything. In fact, the motion requests that the documents be produced unredacted or that the reasons for the redaction be provided.
And it would still remain possible for a witness to produce unredacted documents. A witness could just decide to remove the redaction, making it no longer necessary to give an explanation. My motion therefore strikes me as perfectly correct as is. I agree with Senator Harder. I'd be surprised if any witnesses were to come and apologize and say they had made a mistake. It could happen, but I would be astonished if it did.
If it did, all we would get would be information about why there was a redaction. With respect, I'd prefer to see the rationale provided in writing, as indicated in the motion. People could then come and testify if they wished. I have no objection to that. It might even be useful to hear their explanations. However, suggesting that they come and testify about the redaction could be a lengthy and tedious process. It could easily require an evening or two, and getting an explanation in writing would be much easier and faster.
The other point I would make is that in response to a point raised by Mr. Motz, and it's a fair point, when documents are provided, there's an indication of a type of privilege. In court you'd often see solicitor-client privilege. It's just indicated that the portion that is blacked out is under solicitor-client privilege. The text behind the redaction is not provided along with the assertion of the privilege. It's simply the assertion of the privilege. That's the first point.
I'd also like to speak to the point that I think, given everything that is going on, it's really incumbent upon us to be moving as expeditiously as possible with hearing witnesses. I'm not sure if this is the best-suited motion to be addressing the redactions, which have been done for what I presume are very valid and legitimate reasons. That actually detracts from the important work of this committee, which many of us are eager to get on with.
On a technical note, Mr. Virani, it doesn't appear that your headset is connected. It's creating an issue for translation and audio. Can you please ensure that you've selected your headset within the Zoom settings?
The wording of the amendment would simply be to remove the words in the second paragraph, which commences with “It is agreed”. I would be removing portions of the second line in that second paragraph, so it says, “be required to appear before the committee and provide an explanation of the grounds for each redaction”. Also, I believe 10 days may be a bit onerous. I would suggest that it be switched to three days from the adoption.
If I could, respectfully, I asked you to reread the motion that we've already debated, and you're now in on a second intervention. You're actually amending your amendment at this point. The amendment that's on the floor stands at 10 days, not 30 days. That's the debate we're on right now.
Yes, because we're in the process of debating. I was restating the suggested amendment. You said I couldn't amend my own amendment, and then one of my colleagues tried to take the floor before you called the vote.
I understand the principle of allowing people some time if we asked them to remove the redactions or explain each one in writing, but I don't understand the idea of allowing 30 days before appearing.
If the proposal that I think is being put forward by my Liberal Party colleagues, namely not to request unredacted documents but simply ask witnesses to come here to explain reasons for redactions, then I can't see why that should take 30 days. I feel that our work has been held up long enough. We've been having trouble getting witnesses, for all kinds of reasons, including the fact that many of them are currently appearing before the emergency commission presided by Justice Rouleau, and that has been slowing things down.
In short, this redaction issue could be dealt with as a priority, perhaps next week or the week after that. I think that allowing 30 days would be inappropriate and delay things unnecessarily.
The work that we're asking to come before this committee has already been done by virtue of the redaction. I don't see why 10 days are overly burdensome, because the work has been done. I hope there has been a thought process that can be revealed to us. If, for some reason, we find out that they need a couple of extra days, we can deal with that, but I'm a little reluctant to give 30 days and hear that on day 29.
In response to my colleague, I agree that 30 days is perhaps rather long, in view of the amendment we've just adopted. However, I think we could agree on 15 or 20 days, which is at least a little more than 10 days, simply because we're talking about thousands of documents. They have to be examined and contain the requested information.
I have something else to propose, because, to be honest, the amendment that was read is not altogether clear. I thought we had agreed here, only a few minutes ago, to what you wanted, which is basically information in writing without the need to have witnesses appear.
Perhaps we could agree that it could be done in writing and sent to the committee. The reasons for the redactions could be explained very briefly. I don't know whether you would agree with 15 days rather than 10 days. If so, I believe we could arrive at a solution.
Perhaps I could make a procedural note. What you've suggested is a subamendment on an amendment. That would require Mr. Naqvi's withdrawing his amendment, with the unanimous consent of this committee, in order to consider yours.
I'm prepared to agree to Ms. Bendayan's request if we have the explanations in writing. She asked that a 15 day period be allowed, and I can live with that.
According to the amendment we've just adopted, they are going to come and testify. I don't understand why we would give them them 30 days, since they can testify right now. We adopted an amendment on that point.
If we want to move a new amendment in which we request explanations in writing, then I think we could agree on 15 days.
The point I want to make is that first of all, the motion says “within” 30 days. It does not say “after” 30 days. It gives us the latitude, as the motion reads at this moment, to be able to schedule individuals to appear between now and 30 days and explain the redaction.
We have seen the challenges associated with scheduling people to come before this committee. Giving this a time frame will help our clerks get the right people in front of the committee. That's number one.
Number two, if you stick with the 10 days as has been proposed, for example, that's probably just one committee, by my calculation, that would entail requiring people to come. Right there, I think we are setting ourselves up for failure in terms of getting people to appear and explain those redactions.
My suggestion was of a more practical nature. If folks feel more comfortable with 15 days, and they think we can get the work done with the appearing part, with 15 days for just the documents being submitted, then I can move that subamendment too, if it's agreeable to folks.
You have an amendment on the floor. I'm just going to recap so we're all clear.
The reference to appearances was not limited to being within 10 days. What was within 10 days was the explanation for the redactions. As we are getting into amendments and subamendments on subamendments, I just want to make sure we're not losing what's before us here.
To stay in process, Mr. Naqvi, I will ask you whether you are withdrawing your amendment.
I will withdraw my amendment saying “within 30 days”. I think you will find unanimous consent to the following wording in its entirety. The second paragraph would read:
It is agreed that each department, person and/or agency that produced documents with redacted portions be required to provide the committee with an explanation of the grounds for each redaction in writing within 15 days.
I certainly don't mean to make your life difficult, and if you recognize Mr. Fortin first, that is fine, but if we are moving back to the general list, Mr. Fortin indicated he still had the floor to move another motion after a vote.
Mr. Fortin had an intervention. He caught my attention. We exchanged words; therefore, he had the floor.
After I'm in a conversation with somebody who has the floor, I take a scan around the room to see whose hands are up. I did recognize your hand being up after I was already engaged with Mr. Fortin. I was explaining to him that we were in the main part of the committee business. Understanding, quite rightly, that the amendment had been withdrawn and redrafted through unanimous consent, we are now on the body of the main motion.
I want to make this very clear. When things get complicated like this, it's my role as the chair to ensure that there is procedural fairness. Given that there has been unreadiness around the nature of the unanimous consent on the amendment, we do have procedurally to go back to the main motion as amended for consideration, debate or vote.
At this time, I will test the room to see if we have unanimous consent to the main motion as amended.
I understand, Mr. Chair, but as I was saying, it's when I asked to have the floor, you will no doubt recall that Senator Harder announced that it would be useful to continue the meeting in camera to discuss the work plan, and then we agreed that before discussing this matter in camera, I had two motions to propose.
Moreover, I began by saying that I was going to start by moving the first. With respect, the logical thing to do would be for me to move the second one now.
Just so that we're clear, there was not a concession that your motions would be dealt with consecutively. There is a time in an agenda for motions. All members have an equal right to present motions. That is part of a business meeting.
I'm left with a bit of a situation recognizing and making sure that members of this committee are duly recognized.
I recognize that, but it doesn't mean you reserve the right to move them in a consecutive way. Given the nature and tone of this meeting, I think, procedurally, it would be fair if I turned to Ms. Bendayan to see what she has for this committee's business.
To follow up on what I said at the beginning of the meeting, I would like to propose something and I will do so by moving a motion, if you will permit, Mr. Chair.
I suggest that we discuss the list of witnesses now, along with the work plan for the coming weeks.
I understand that Senator Harder had moved a motion for the meeting to continue in camera as soon we address the matter of the witnesses. However, I would like to begin the discussion about the witnesses right now, in view of the importance of getting on with our work.
We agreed that we would deal with the scheduling portion after we dealt with the substantive motions, so I would rule that motion out of order. It's dilatory, given that he's already presented that motion and we agreed that it would be the case.
I'll be brief. My comments are about the second motion that was sent to all members this week. I'll read the motion:
WHEREAS the Honourable Paul S. Rouleau is currently presiding over the public inquiry into the declaration of emergency issued in 2022 (Rouleau Commission), pursuant to the Order in Council of April 25, 2022, which was adopted to meet the provisions of section 63 of the Emergencies Act;
WHEREAS, the Commission is scheduled to sit and hear witnesses from October 13, 2022, through November 25, 2022;
WHEREAS, these hearings are public;
WHEREAS, the evidence and documents produced before the Commission are of great interest to the members of the Joint Committee and may have a significant impact on the work of the Joint Committee, including the summoning of witnesses;
IT IS AGREED that an analyst be assigned to the work of the Joint Committee to monitor the work of the Rouleau Commission and report back to the Committee with a summary of each day’s work, including the names of the witnesses heard and a brief summary of the information provided by the witnesses and the documents produced.
I won't read the motion again, because I believe it's pretty complete. This commission has been conducting its work on the same events that are the subject of our inquiry. It strikes me as rather inane, if I may say so, not to take testimony before the commission into consideration. Just as the information we receive in our joint committee work might be of interest to the Rouleau commission, the members of our committee might be interested in the information and testimony heard by the Rouleau commission.
If we are to do our job effectively, I think it it's essential for us to monitor the commission's work. I would further suggest that this monitoring process be carried out by an analyst, because each of us might track their work and remember only those parts of it that suit our respective theories of what went wrong, thus leading us to spend a long time arguing over our differences of opinion.
With someone neutral to do this work, however, such as an analyst with no particular axe to grind, they would simply listen and report objectively on what is being said before the Rouleau commission, thereby saving us a lot of time. We could then decide whether or not to use that testimony and the documents produced. If required, we could invite these witnesses to come and repeat to us what was said at the Rouleau commission or, if we had additional questions, request further details.
Once again, we can't ignore what's happening at the Rouleau commission if we want to do our work properly.
I appreciate the intent of the motion, and I support its intent. The only concern I might have is the capacity of the analysts. We don't run the Library of Parliament. We don't manage their analysts, but we have given ourselves the ability to retain counsel, should we wish, or to retain some outside capacity, and I think that is something you should consider as the chair.
I agree with the intent of the motion. I think we need to have that data. I don't know if we need to have it daily, but I think it should be reported to the committee on a regular basis, maybe weekly. We need to have the capacity for someone to do it and do it well. I don't know whether the analysts have that capacity, and I don't think we should burden them with that side of it as well.
That's my intervention at this time. If we have to move an amendment, I will do so after some more interventions.
I would concur in the spirit that I believe we need a mechanism in place that would receive the substantive information documents, evidentiary proceedings not just of the commission, but also, in my opinion, of some of the civil proceedings to help us get that greater disclosure that we have been unable to have provided to this committee by the government.
However, I don't think it is feasible to have staff do daily reviews of the proceedings. I have tried. These are nine hours a day on the inquiry, with lots of information, and I just don't know that it's feasible to have daily reports on witnesses and summaries to that effect.
However, I think for the documents and evidence that are presented there could be a process, whether it be weekly or whatever would seem most feasible, to allow us to get that information to be part of our reports and part of our summaries.
Maybe there's a point in time in this committee that we set aside specifically to look at the findings of that inquiry, because I think it's safe to say that we are not likely to be wrapped up before that happens, given our scheduling challenges here.
With that being said, I personally can't support this as it's presented, just given some of the institutional challenges.
I will make one more note here that I have been informed that if we do want to go outside to get some kind of consultant's support on this, it is a much longer process and it's one most likely bound by the collective agreements of the Hill that would suggest that we would need to prove that's not something that could be done here. From a labour perspective, as a good New Democrat, I would flag that. I will not be in a process as a chair where I'm getting grieved by the committee.
With that being said, I will end my comments there and take the chair back.
I'd like to draw your attention to the fact that the motion does not mention reporting to our committee every day. The motion says, “report back to the Committee with a summary of each day’s work”.
A summary of each day's work, not a report to the committee every day.
It's a fine distinction, but an important one. I understand that the report can be prepared at the end of the week. I have no objection to that, of course. In my view, there should be a summary for each day. For example: today, Ms. Bendayan, Mr. Fortin, Mr. Green, and others were heard. It would keep us informed about what happened at the commission.
In any event, I understand what you're saying about the collective agreements and all that. That's one of the reasons why I was suggesting the task be assigned to an analyst. I have no objection to our hiring someone from outside, but the timing might be a problem for me. The commission is sitting until November 25, so if it takes a month to find someone, then of course we would be wasting our time and it would serve no purpose.
If we adopt a motion requesting analysts to do the work, and it turns out that they can't, owing to a staff shortage, then the analysts' supervisor could, I'm convinced, hire someone. I don't think the committee should be concerned about collective agreements because that would prevent us from ever getting anything done.
There are several collective agreements. It's not our role to deal with them. Our role is to take stock of the situation. With respect, I must say that it's fairly urgent. The commission has been sitting every day since October 13. We have already reached October 20, meaning that the commission has been under way for seven days. I believe we should reach a decision this evening. We should trust the analysts for this work. Once again, it's not a matter of reporting to us every day. We don't meet every day, in any event.
I'm going to make another administrative comment, as we're now coming up on 7:30 p.m., to be expeditious with your statements if it's your intention that we get to scheduling. It's within all your rights to speak as long as you want, but just know that the more we're speaking to our motions, particularly to our own, the less time it gives us to get—
I'd like to clarify something. I believe that the Rouleau commission testimony is being transcribed, and the transcripts are on the website. They automatically become part of the evidence we are receiving as a result of a motion we adopted. I'm trying to find the date it was adopted.
To summarize, the motion says that the committee considers the evidence, including the testimony and documents received by the standing committees of the House and the emergency commission are published on the website and are part of the evidence. That's an approximate summary of the motion.
Have I got that right?
My question is perhaps for the clerk.
Is it clear that everything heard by the Rouleau commission is part of the evidence before us and that we can use it?
I want to be sure that I've properly understood the meaning of the motions the committee adopted at the very outset. It might be useful to have a summary, or for someone to provide an explanation. If we had the transcripts, we would at least have something.
Just following up on what Senator Carignan was mentioning, it would seem to my mind that it makes the present motion somewhat redundant if the evidence is already effectively before the committee, based on what we passed at previous meetings. That means Mr. Fortin seems to be asking just for an analyst to be assigned to summarize that same evidence.
To that point, I would actually ask, through you, Mr. Chair, for the analysts' input, going back to what Mr. Motz raised, so they can provide us at this committee tonight a sense of their own wherewithal to do this additional work.
I'm still curious as to whether an amendment may be proposed by Mr. Motz. Could we first hear from the analysts about their capacity to do exactly what is being asked? I'm sensitive to the point that was raised by Mr. Motz and others about their current workload.
I'm sorry. At this time, Mr. Virani has the floor.
I can come back to you, but he put a question specifically to the analysts. I would like for Mr. Virani to have that question answered. If there are further questions for the committee, we can address them at the appropriate time.
We were aware of the motion and we have discussed it internally. As has been mentioned, it's mostly a question of resources. I guess the main point is that we aren't certain how long this would take us to get out there. Given that it's an ongoing process, the amount builds up. We are working on it; it's just that we can't give a very certain deadline at this point.
As a chair's note, for the consideration of committee, there may be a possibility of our having the analysts report back with the feasibility. Otherwise, we are essentially debating something that we don't even quite know or fully understand whether we have the capacity for.
I'll just put that there for your consideration—it's not a motion—that they may be able to report back to this committee on the feasibility of this.
Just so I'm clear, Mr. Virani, is your intervention complete with that question?
I don't find the answer to be as robust as I would have liked, perhaps, but I feel as if the analyst was being a bit diplomatic there. I know they are working pretty hard, all the time. We know that if there are nine hours of evidence in a day, that's a lot of evidence to go through.
Thank you for having my question answered, Mr. Chair.
I was going to propose that we adjourn this discussion and invite the analysts to consult as to whether or not it would be possible for an analyst to be dedicated to performing this task. I think it's an important piece.
When we have heard that, I would hope the analyst can speak to all of the joint chairs and come up with a solution that would enable the committee to receive a report on the work being done at the commission.
I'm not opposed to that, but I think I would have preferred a bit of a parameter around what we're asking the analyst to do. If our analyst goes back and has the conversation, it might be appropriate if we, as a committee, say.... We have eight, nine or 10 hours a day in commission hearings, and sometimes 400-plus pages and documents.
What is our expectation? The analysts have to know what we expect before they can give us an informed comment back. I was hoping we could give them that and say, “Listen, we don't have to have it the day of; it can be a week later”, or whatever that looks like. I'm suggesting that if we have some of those parameters around what we expect the analysts to provide us, we're going to get a better, more fulsome response back, which may be more favourable to the committee. That's all.
Thank you for that intervention—that comment on the proceedings of the previous undebatable motion.
They do have, at their disposal.... Just so we're clear, our analysts are here. They are privy to our discussions, and they understand the spirit and intent, I believe, of the discussions. They also have the ability to reference transcripts—as does the Library of Parliament—so they are able to come up with recommendations pursuant to the spirit of the motion at hand.
With that being said, are there any other motions in this...?
Oh, I'm sorry. We have Ms. Bendayan, then Senator Harder.
I'd like to see clarification from the clerk, further to the exchange that occurred with Senator Carignan.
Senator Carignan was referring back to a motion adopted by this committee on September 22. I'll read the beginning, because it seems quite clear to me: “That the Committee deem the evidence, including testimony and documents, received by, and published on the websites of, [other] standing committees of the House of Commons and the Public Order Emergency Commission”. It's the inquiry Senator Carignan was just asking about, in relation to the invocation of the Emergencies Act.
For me, the plain reading of the motion would indicate that the testimony heard every day, which Senator Carignan referred to, is indeed deemed part of our record.
You're going to be sent out a new link that will provide you with a secure Zoom connection to the committee meeting. We'll give you 10 minutes to receive that information, to log out and to log back on. I assure members that we will provide as much time and technical support as possible to make sure the transition is smooth.
This meeting is now suspended until we come back in camera.