Evidence of meeting #116 for Canadian Heritage in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was funding.

A video is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

David Dendooven  Assistant Deputy Minister, Strategic Policy, Planning and Corporate Affairs, Department of Canadian Heritage
Clerk of the Committee  Ms. Geneviève Desjardins
Ian Brodie  Professor, University of Calgary, As an Individual
Guillaume Rousseau  Law Professor, As an Individual
Geoffrey Sigalet  Assistant Professor, As an Individual
Marika Giles Samson  Director, Court Challenges Program of Canada
Humera Jabir  Staff Lawyer, West Coast Legal Education and Action Fund

5:35 p.m.

The Clerk

The question is more a procedural one. The required amount of time is 48 hours, and that would again fall within the 48 hours. If you will allow me to make a legislative suggestion, it would be preferable to set the deadline at noon to include the afternoon of May 3 as well. The committee can at least decide that the deadline will be 48 hours.

5:35 p.m.

Bloc

Martin Champoux Bloc Drummond, QC

Thank you.

Mr. Chair. I think that's reasonable. I know my Liberal and NDP colleagues were in favour of the initial motion earlier, but I think we also have to allow for the work that we have to do for any bill.

I understand why we want to precipitate matters, why we want to hurry, but this is an important bill for the Bloc Québécois, for Quebeckers, for Canadians and for official language minority communities. We must respect the work we have to do, and we must also have to respect ourselves. We need to do our work properly.

I have some important witnesses to be heard in committee, and I want to make sure they can be heard. As Ms. Thomas said, I want to have the time to prepare the amendments based on the testimony we've heard. We have to take the time to do the job right.

5:35 p.m.

Conservative

The Vice-Chair Conservative Kevin Waugh

Is there any other discussion on the subamendment?

Seeing none, we will have a vote on Ms. Thomas's subamendment.

Do you want to go ahead, Clerk?

Keep in mind, committee, that 5:40 is the deadline here.

(Subamendment negatived: nays 6; yeas 4 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

5:35 p.m.

The Chair

The subamendment is defeated.

5:35 p.m.

Conservative

The Vice-Chair Conservative Kevin Waugh

We are at 5:40 right now.

5:40 p.m.

Liberal

Taleeb Noormohamed Liberal Vancouver Granville, BC

Can we just vote and be done with this?

5:40 p.m.

Conservative

Rachael Thomas Conservative Lethbridge, AB

Really, couldn't we give an extra 24 hours for the amendments?

I'm just baffled. I don't even understand. At this point it's just trying to be spiteful. There's not even political gamesmanship in that.

5:40 p.m.

Conservative

The Vice-Chair Conservative Kevin Waugh

Mr. Coteau, go ahead quickly.

I need someone to adjourn. We're at the time.

5:40 p.m.

Liberal

Michael Coteau Liberal Don Valley East, ON

I would just like to request that we continue with the final two votes, since we're really in the middle of a series of votes.

5:40 p.m.

Conservative

The Vice-Chair Conservative Kevin Waugh

We're back at the amendment then. Is that right?

5:40 p.m.

The Clerk

We can, as long as there are speakers on the list.

5:40 p.m.

Conservative

The Vice-Chair Conservative Kevin Waugh

We've done the subamendment. That was turned down. Your amendment....

5:40 p.m.

The Clerk

If there is no discussion, then we can go to a vote.

5:40 p.m.

Conservative

Rachael Thomas Conservative Lethbridge, AB

I'm on the list.

5:40 p.m.

Conservative

The Vice-Chair Conservative Kevin Waugh

You're on the list, Ms. Thomas.

5:40 p.m.

Conservative

Rachael Thomas Conservative Lethbridge, AB

I have about 30 minutes' worth of talking to do.

5:40 p.m.

Liberal

Taleeb Noormohamed Liberal Vancouver Granville, BC

Do you ever have less than 30 minutes of talking to do?

5:40 p.m.

Conservative

Rachael Thomas Conservative Lethbridge, AB

No, because what we just witnessed the Liberals do here.... I simply asked for a very common-sense subamendment. I asked for our amendments to be due after we heard from all the witnesses. This is a common process. Of course you would want to hear from all of the witnesses before you put forward—

5:40 p.m.

Liberal

Taleeb Noormohamed Liberal Vancouver Granville, BC

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

5:40 p.m.

Conservative

The Vice-Chair Conservative Kevin Waugh

Mr. Noormohamed, go ahead on your point of order, please.

5:40 p.m.

Liberal

Taleeb Noormohamed Liberal Vancouver Granville, BC

This sounds like debate on a subamendment that was already defeated. We are now supposed to be debating on the subamendment and/or the motion. We've already resolved the matter on this.

I would like it, Mr. Chair, if you might allow us to move on to the votes that we are currently in the middle of, rather than opening up debate on something that is already closed.

5:40 p.m.

Conservative

The Vice-Chair Conservative Kevin Waugh

Ms. Thomas, continue, but make your comments short.

Then we will have Mr. Gourde.

April 18th, 2024 / 5:40 p.m.

Conservative

Rachael Thomas Conservative Lethbridge, AB

With all due respect, Chair, I don't have to make my comments short. I do have to remain relevant, which I am, because I am saying that in regard to the amendment that is on the table right now, I cannot support it, because we have been asked to submit our amendments before we hear from all of the witnesses, and that is inappropriate.

It is inappropriate to require the members of this table to submit their amendments and changes to this bill before we have heard from all the witnesses. We should have the opportunity to hear from all those who wish to speak to this bill and share their various concerns with us in order to gain an understanding of what they see in this bill—both the pros and the cons, the areas that are strong and the areas that are weak, the areas that can stay as they are and the areas where perhaps changes are needed.

If this committee is not willing to hear from all those witnesses concerning this bill before we have to put forward amendments, that is just inappropriate. Really, what this committee is saying, then, is that the voices of individuals who come here after the amendments are due are null and void, because we've already made or suggested any changes we want to make. That's inappropriate. Procedurally, that is just inappropriate.

For crying out loud, this is the Parliament of Canada. This is a place where we create legislation. This is a place where we are putting pieces of legislation in place, bills in place, that govern the people of Canada. If we can't do that in the most appropriate manner possible, then shame on us. Asking for our amendments before we've properly heard from witnesses is 100% inappropriate. It is incredibly irresponsible of those at this table.

I applaud the Bloc member for seeing this and voting in favour of the subamendment that was previously discussed. Those extra 24 hours seemed appropriate, but here we are: We're back discussing a better amendment, in the sense that it proposes three meetings to hear from witnesses. I appreciate that because we'll hear from more voices, and I believe the Bloc member is correct that this is very important, but again, this amendment requires that the amendments to the bill be submitted before we hear from all those who would wish to testify.

5:45 p.m.

Conservative

The Vice-Chair Conservative Kevin Waugh

Ms. Thomas, I have to suspend the meeting, unfortunately. We'll pick this up on Tuesday, April 30.

5:45 p.m.

An hon. member

Why?