Evidence of meeting #1 for Bill C-39 in the 45th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was chair.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Liberal
Conservative
Mike Lake Conservative Leduc—Wetaskiwin, AB
If it's going to come back to clause-by-clause on the 16th—I think that's a Monday—which is what we agreed to earlier, we don't know what that's going to look like at that point in time. To set a deadline for it to be completed....
Again, it's the “most consequential” legislation in decades. For us to predetermine, as a committee, that the process is going to be done that week.... I don't think this would be the process Canadians expect the most consequential legislation in decades to be passed through committee by.
I don't think we want to rush it. We may hear from witnesses, and even government members may decide that substantial amendments are in order to get this legislation right. I don't think you want to tie your hands as a committee to race to get this done by the end of—
Liberal
The Chair Liberal James Maloney
I'll let you have your time, Mr. Lake, but Mr. Lauzon has already indicated that he's willing to withdraw this point.
Conservative
Liberal
The Chair Liberal James Maloney
This is why I was surprised that the three of you were still anxious to speak.
Conservative
Liberal
The Chair Liberal James Maloney
We have unanimous consent—good.
The amendment proposed by Mr. Lauzon now carries on, but we've gone back to using the word “Begin”. That change is withdrawn from the amendment.
Now we are continuing to discuss the amendment with that small change.
Conservative
Mike Lake Conservative Leduc—Wetaskiwin, AB
I have two things.
Number one is that I'd like to hear an explanation for why we're removing part (d).
The second is this: Would it be possible to reread part (a)? We don't need to reread the names, just the sentence at the beginning.
Liberal
Stéphane Lauzon Liberal Argenteuil—Papineau—Des Collines, QC
Okay.
Let's start with part (a).
The motion proposes that, as part of its consideration of Bill C‑39, the committee invite four ministers, accompanied by public servants, to appear before the committee, with two ministers at a time for two two-hour sessions.
Conservative
Mike Lake Conservative Leduc—Wetaskiwin, AB
Okay.
Can we get the explanation for the removal of part (d)? You removed part (d), and we want to understand why.
Conservative
Liberal
Stéphane Lauzon Liberal Argenteuil—Papineau—Des Collines, QC
Mr. Chair, obviously, in paragraph d of Mr. Albas's original motion, it read “insofar as possible”. This is indeed to allow analysts to check the availability of witnesses; therefore, it is not necessary to say “Instructs the chair to arrange, insofar as possible”. In fact, this is done automatically to secure witnesses. It is the clerk who does this, who checks the availability of witnesses. Therefore, the chair has no responsibility to arrange this. It is the committee that liaises with the clerk to ensure we can have witnesses. The clerk will check the list of available witnesses invited to appear before the committee. This has no relevance, in my opinion.
Conservative
Dan Albas Conservative Okanagan Lake West—South Kelowna, BC
Mr. Chair, first, I want to thank Mr. Lauzon for coming to the table with a reasonable proposition in terms of having the ministers come. I don't understand taking out part (d), because it indicates our preference that we would like to see, wherever possible, three panellists. The exception when it comes to the ministers is laid out in the motion.
Mr. Chair, will you and the clerk be attempting to do that wherever possible, regardless of whether this motion goes forward with or without part (d)? Is that your intention?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal James Maloney
You pre-empted the next words out of my mouth. Of course I'm going to.
Conservative
Dan Albas Conservative Okanagan Lake West—South Kelowna, BC
Hearing that from you, Mr. Chair, makes me sleep well at night.
Thank you.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal James Maloney
There's the sound bite for today.
Okay.
Mr. Danko, do you have any comments?
Liberal
John-Paul Danko Liberal Hamilton West—Ancaster—Dundas, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I need to clarify the schedule for part (a). Maybe this is a translation thing, because what I heard in the interpretation was that the wording was “two ministers at a time for two hours each”. It's not clear whether each minister is appearing for two hours at a time or whether each panel is appearing for two hours at a time. What we're actually proposing is that there are two panels and that each panel invite two ministers, with each panel being two hours long. Therefore, there are four hours, total, of minister testimony.
I heard it in the interpretation as “two ministers at a time for two hours each”, which could be interpreted to be each minister, not each panel.
Liberal
Stéphane Lauzon Liberal Argenteuil—Papineau—Des Collines, QC
That's a good point, but we're saying the same thing.
Conservative
Liberal
Stéphane Lauzon Liberal Argenteuil—Papineau—Des Collines, QC
Two panels. That's a good point. We can add “two panels”—
Liberal
The Chair Liberal James Maloney
Two panels, each of which is two hours long and contains two ministers.
Liberal
Stéphane Lauzon Liberal Argenteuil—Papineau—Des Collines, QC
—two panels, two hours each for two ministers. The wording says everything.