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.
Conservative
Mike Lake Conservative Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB
I move that the list of witnesses be determined by a vote of the committee at a committee business meeting to be held from 9:00 a.m. to 11:00 a.m. on Thursday, February 16, 2012.
Actually, can I amend my own motion and add one word, just to be clear? I do want it to be clear.
Conservative
Mike Lake Conservative Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB
We'll say “preliminary” witness list, because I do want to be clear that by no means are we cutting off the witness list on Thursday. That may be the case and it may wind up being the only witness list that we have, but I think we want to leave ourselves open as a committee if we decide that we want to hear from somebody based on some of the testimony we hear.
The Chair NDP Glenn Thibeault
I think the committee will need to have some discussion and some clarification. As the chair, in discussing with the clerk, I was under the impression that we were starting after the break, so if the committee wants to have another committee business meeting this Thursday, we'll have to have that discussion as well and go with the wishes of the committee.
All right. We have the motion. I believe I saw Mr. Benskin....
NDP
Tyrone Benskin NDP Jeanne-Le Ber, QC
It actually was going to be a friendly amendment to add the word “preliminary”.
Liberal
Geoff Regan Liberal Halifax West, NS
Isn't this motion in conflict with the previous motion, which was that the first committee meeting would be on February 27?
NDP
Liberal
Geoff Regan Liberal Halifax West, NS
I don't see how you can have both. We've already decided when the first meeting is, so I don't know how this is in order. It shouldn't be in order.
NDP
The Chair NDP Glenn Thibeault
Thank you. One second, please, while I consult with the clerk.
I was looking for clarification, and I see that it can be done. There are ways we can do this, but I think I'm going to leave it up to the wishes of the committee, if that's something they would like to do. Otherwise, we did vote that the committee will start on Monday, February 27. I'll leave this for the committee to decide, but we'll move forward from there.
I have Mr. Angus and then Mr. Del Mastro.
NDP
Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON
I don't have a problem with setting up a witness list so that we can actually start to work and hit the ground running on the Monday. My only concern is that since the committee hasn't been struck yet, there will be groups or experts who might contact the committee, as opposed to already being on our witness list. We have the witness list from last time, but now that the committee is actually struck, there will be people who make contact, so I would like us to meet on Thursday. As well, let's set up a working plan for the first two weeks after we're back, because it's going to take a bit of time to track those, but when we come back there might be 10 or 12 witnesses we'd to want to hear from to make sure we're doing due diligence.
If it's about getting started and getting down to work on the Monday, then I'm fine with that. That's my understanding of “preliminary”; it's so we can hit the ground running. However, we can also make sure that we are not precluding people who may be important to hear from in the study.
Conservative
Dean Del Mastro Conservative Peterborough, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just wanted to clarify the discussion that we had just a moment ago, as mentioned by Mr. Regan.
If you check the record, I believe you'll find the schedule as voted upon by this committee. It was agreed that this schedule would commence on February 27. Nothing precludes the committee from commencing an alternative schedule between now and then. What this motion seeks to do is to set up a meeting on Thursday, in advance, so that we can accomplish exactly what Mr. Angus has just articulated very capably.
NDP
The Chair NDP Glenn Thibeault
Thank you, Mr. Del Mastro.
Again, as I said, I'll leave this up to the will of the committee. It sounds as though there's some willingness to work together on this question. There are a few ways. We can, if we need to, use language to correct it, but otherwise, I'll leave that with the committee. Just for clarification, we're saying that we will meet Thursday, February 16, at 9:00 a.m.
Is there a duration of time? Are we looking for an hour, two hours? Is there any consideration of that? I'd put that out there as well.
Is it 9:00 a.m. to 11:00 a.m.?
Conservative
Mike Lake Conservative Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB
A time of 9:00 a.m. to 11:00 a.m. would be fine, because Mr. Angus has to get to committee meetings.
NDP
The Chair NDP Glenn Thibeault
Is there any further discussion on the motion?
(Motion agreed to)
Go ahead, Mr. Lake.
Conservative
Mike Lake Conservative Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB
Okay, you may want to get a pen out for this one as well. It's a little bit longer.
I move:
That the committee begin clause-by-clause consideration of the bill no later than Wednesday, March 14, 2012; that debate be limited to a maximum of five minutes per party, per clause, and five minutes per party per amendment; and that if clause-by-clause consideration is not completed by 9:00 a.m. on Thursday, March 29, 2012, the chair shall interrupt debate and put the question on all remaining clauses and amendments, as well as all other questions necessary to dispose of this stage of the bill forthwith and successively without further debate and shall report the bill back to the House at the earliest opportunity.
Liberal
Scott Simms Liberal Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL
I never thought I'd see closure injected into the committee, but obviously that's what we have.
I find it overly restrictive in the sense of the testimony, especially regarding the witnesses. Maybe some circumstances have changed; the witness list itself is going to be new. As was directed by the committee in a vote, they are going to be new members. They're not people we've had before. Obviously, the conversation is going to be about the idea that we can't restrict them to a certain amount of time if you want to practise due diligence. If you don't, you can just cut it off at some point.
I have issues with the clause-by-clause aspect, but my first concern is the cap you're putting on witnesses for a piece of legislation as important as copyright.
NDP
Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON
I am surprised we're striking a committee at all. It's unheard of to invoke closure on issues of amendments. The amendments are key. This is whether Canadians are going to have faith in this bill or not. For example, the issue of the digital locks is complex. This issue is going to need a discussion. Either we're going to come here to work to improve this bill or our attendance here is a complete waste of our time. If the government's just going to ram it through, then they might as well just do it in an afternoon and order you to send it back as mentioned, but that is undermining the role of this committee, and it's disrespectful to the perspectives that are brought here.
I've spent eight years working on the copyright file. I take this matter very seriously. I think that telling us to shut up and sit down while you rubber-stamp a bill will poison the atmosphere around this table from the beginning. It sets a very disturbing precedent for how this Parliament and future Parliaments may continue.
Conservative
Mike Lake Conservative Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB
In the math I'm looking at now, we've already spent 39 hours of committee time discussing this bill. We've set aside time to hear from another 60 organizations, so we've put a very significant amount of resources and time toward listening to witnesses. We have another 30 hours of committee testimony before we get to clause-by-clause study.
Furthermore, we have 15 hours set aside for clause-by-clause consideration. Generally, I've seen clause-by-clause consideration done in one or two meetings. For anyone who's serious about working on getting the best bill that we can and hearing from witnesses, this is far more than enough time. We spent months—months—dealing with this in the last Parliament. I would say that it was apparent to anybody who watched that proceedings that it was delayed at every turn by the opposition parties. We're just not going to see that happen this time.
We want to set aside a fair amount of time for debate and discussion. We want to hear from the witnesses we haven't heard from before, but clearly there are some in this room who don't want to see the bill passed.
This isn't going to be an interminable process. It just isn't.
NDP
The Chair NDP Glenn Thibeault
Thank you, Mr. Lake.
I think we also need some clarification from you. The motion states “March 14”, which is a Wednesday—if that's where you want it to start it, it is a Wednesday—and there is a break week in between, from the March 19 to March 23.