Evidence of meeting #1 for Bill C-11 (41st Parliament, 1st Session) in the 41st Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was going.
A recording is available from Parliament.
5:05 p.m.
NDP
The Chair NDP Glenn Thibeault
Great. Thank you, Mr. Lake.
I'll suspend for one second.
We're going to deal with the amendment first, and on the amendment, Mr. Nantel was next to speak.
Monsieur Nantel, are you still interested in speaking to the amendment?
5:05 p.m.
NDP
Pierre Nantel NDP Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher, QC
Yes.
There are people with whom we are already accustomed to working, and to be perfectly honest, I find this whole situation shameful. I am extremely glad that people can hear this debate.
Mr. Del Mastro told us that this was an important and complex bill—I agree that it is complex. He also said that there were many interests at stake. So how can we perform the analysis the bill deserves and, at the same time, ask that the debate move in camera? Hello! Buongiorno!
5:05 p.m.
Conservative
Mike Lake Conservative Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB
On a point of order, Mr. Chair, the honourable member's probably wondering what I was saying. I was expressing how I still had points to make, and that the motion wasn't meant to be the only thing that I was saying during that timeframe, just to clarify.
5:05 p.m.
NDP
Pierre Nantel NDP Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher, QC
Thank you.
I cannot understand how we.... I speak English here because I'm addressing this to you guys. You mostly speak English, so that's why, and to better represent the people in my riding who speak French, who feel that their culture is endangered, as do many other Canadians all over Canada, by such amendments and such points in that law.
How can you rationalize the analysis of this bill? It is so complicated, and then you say there's time allocation.
Really, we are facing each other; we are addressing a regulation that's going to change our patrimoine, our heritage, here in Canada—for the good, we hope. Then you say, “Yes, but it's our privilege not to talk longer than that, so bye-bye.” Is that how you pretend to really, sincerely...?
I may sound very naive and candid, but I am speaking frankly because the people who elected me expect me to speak for them.
5:05 p.m.
An hon. member
That's right.
5:05 p.m.
NDP
Pierre Nantel NDP Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher, QC
Honestly, I know you can do whatever you want, but it must be much harder for you to do it in such an intimate context compared to the House of Commons.
5:05 p.m.
NDP
The Chair NDP Glenn Thibeault
Thank you, Mr. Nantel.
I believe, Mr. Lake, you said you had a few points that you would like to bring forward.
5:05 p.m.
Conservative
Mike Lake Conservative Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB
Yes, I'd like to do that in this debate.
First of all, the reason we are putting this motion forward is that we know that if we don't, we will be discussing this bill when the next election comes, because that's how long this committee hearing will take if we don't move forward now.
It's interminable; it really is. In the last Parliament we heard from more than 70—
5:05 p.m.
Conservative
Mike Lake Conservative Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB
—organizations. Of course, the leadership on this bill is the same leadership. Mr. Angus was the NDP lead at that time. We heard from more than 70 organizations. We have put forward a plan to hear from 60 more organizations, so it will be more than 130 organizations.
Mr. Simms makes the point that the Liberals actually support the bill and want to see it passed, yet his colleague, Mr. Regan, introduced a motion in the House of Commons to kill the bill. Basically it was not a motion to change it in any way; it was just a motion to kill the bill, so clearly the Liberal position is that they actually don't want to see the bill passed.
When you get a chance to read the testimony, you'll see that witness after witness came before the committee last time and spoke about the urgency of getting this bill passed, saying that we need to pass this legislation.
This cannot go on forever. I think most reasonable people looking at this process would say that giving more than 130 witnesses and organizations the chance to testify is eminently reasonable. In fact, I would be hard pressed to find a piece of legislation that had more witnesses testify in the last several decades, probably.
If what you're saying is that we need more than 12 hours a week to do this, do you know what? Members on this side of the table would be willing to maybe meet 16 hours a week, if we need to--that might be a compromise-- but we have to get this bill passed. It's important that we get it passed.
Last time around, just to be clear, the members in the three opposition parties voted to limit the testimony to four hours a week. I know it's hard to believe, but they voted to limit the testimony to four hours a week. We said we would meet eight hours a week to try to make sure that we heard everybody who wanted to be heard, so that we could pass the legislation, but they voted to make sure we limited it to four hours a week. That's just not going to happen again.
Mr. Benskin, you mentioned that you might want to ask questions of people who had been before the committee before. Well, certainly, the bill hasn't changed. They have come forward and testified before the committee or have made submissions to the committee on the bill, and it hasn't changed. As you review that testimony, you can phone the witnesses directly. Most of them would take your call, I'm sure, and you could take your five minutes to ask them whatever questions you want. You could even take 10 or 15 minutes to ask them questions, if you want, so you'd get the opportunity to ask the questions you want to ask.
We have a month and a half scheduled from now until the end of the bill. It's a month and a half. I can't remember a piece of legislation that we've studied for even close to a month and a half—maybe with some breaks, such as a Christmas break in between—but we have a significant amount of time scheduled to study this piece of legislation. All we have to do is roll up our sleeves, get down to work, and get this bill passed.
5:10 p.m.
NDP
The Chair NDP Glenn Thibeault
Thank you, Mr. Lake.
I have a couple of other speakers, but before we continue, let me say as chair that you all have my respect. I respect each and every one of you. When someone is speaking, I also expect that you will give them the same respect and courtesy.
With that, I'll move forward. Please have civil debate and lots of it, but make sure it's civil.
Go ahead, Monsieur Nantel.
5:10 p.m.
NDP
Pierre Nantel NDP Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher, QC
Thank you, Mr. Lake, for your explanation. I agree with you that the decision you had the last time on the witnesses' time is surprising.
My concern is not about the time we allow to listen to witnesses. My concern is about the time allocation we have to conclude on this as a team. We are supposed to be a team and say, “We heard this point of view and that point of view. I think this and that”. The biggest point to me is that we should have more time to bring conclusions to amendments. That's what I have to say.
5:10 p.m.
NDP
Pierre Dionne Labelle NDP Rivière-du-Nord, QC
Listen, I was quite shocked to hear Mr. Lake say we had heard from 130 witnesses. He also said that the bill currently before us was the same bill. We invited 130 witnesses to discuss Bill C-32, and here we are today....
5:10 p.m.
Conservative
Mike Lake Conservative Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB
Just to clarify, there were over 70 witnesses on Bill C-32, and we will hear from another 60.
5:10 p.m.
NDP
Pierre Dionne Labelle NDP Rivière-du-Nord, QC
Thank you for clarifying.
You did not change anything in your bill. You listened to all those people and you are bringing forward the same bill. And people wonder why we are worried, why we want to take our time studying the bill and making amendments that address the issues and suggestions identified by the witnesses who came here.
We are against ceasing our work on March 29th. We will study this bill until it protects the people on whose behalf we are working.
5:15 p.m.
NDP
The Chair NDP Glenn Thibeault
Thank you, Mr. Dionne Labelle.
Is there any further debate?
Go ahead, Mr. Cash.
5:15 p.m.
NDP
Andrew Cash NDP Davenport, ON
I think we should try to move to the next issue, but I want to get back to the comment of Mr. Lake, which was that if we want to question witnesses, we're free to give them a phone call. I think Canadians expect more of this committee, in terms of transparency and accountability, than to have members just phone stakeholders and get their answers on the telephone. That is an outrageous comment.
5:15 p.m.
Conservative
Mike Lake Conservative Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB
On a point of order, I would like to clarify whether the honourable members actually had any meetings with stakeholders in private up to this point. Maybe he wants to clarify.
5:15 p.m.
Conservative
