Evidence of meeting #149 for Canadian Heritage in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was line.
A video is available from Parliament.
3:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Julie Dabrusin
Welcome to this 149th meeting of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage.
Today we begin our clause-by-clause study of Bill C-91.
3:55 p.m.
Cathy McLeod Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, CPC
Madam Chair, before we get started, I want to express significant concern. To have the government side drop over 20 amendments 15 minutes prior to clause-by-clause is absolutely ridiculous. There is a process, which I think every committee member goes through, in terms of doing due diligence around amendments to see if it fits in. As I said, I think it's absolutely shameful that with 15 minutes to go there are over 20 amendments that have been tabled.
As such, I'd like to make a motion that we adopt this bill as is, without amendments.
3:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Julie Dabrusin
I'm just getting some advice from the clerks for the moment. I'm just going to hold that for a second, if I may, so that I can get proper advice from my clerks.
Because this is highly unusual, it requires getting some advice from the external clerk. We're going to have to hold onto that for a moment. I'm just going to suspend it for a moment so I can get the proper advice.
If I may, what I did want to start with, in fact, was the budget for the study.
3:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Julie Dabrusin
It was Mr. Anandasangaree's turn, in fact.
Is it about this motion?
3:55 p.m.
NDP
Pierre Nantel NDP Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC
If a motion is tabled and we are going to vote on it, I understand that we wait for the vote. However, if it is not voted on and it is debated, I too would have something to say.
3:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Julie Dabrusin
Very well. We are waiting.
What we're doing now, on this motion, is just holding it until I have advice from the clerks as to whether it's actually a motion that can be brought—whether it's a proper motion.
We're not debating it. We're not discussing that motion right now. I will have your name down.
3:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Julie Dabrusin
Can I just do one thing first? Mr. Anandasangaree was ahead of you on the list.
3:55 p.m.
Liberal
Gary Anandasangaree Liberal Scarborough—Rouge Park, ON
Thank you, Madam Chair.
First and foremost, to the committee members, particularly the opposition, I want to profusely apologize for the very late submission of the proposed amendments. I recognize that both parties opposite have been submitting these documents in a very timely manner, and we appreciate that. Regrettably, due to circumstances beyond our control and beyond the control of the minister, we were unable to provide these up until now. In fact, we take responsibility for this. However, we believe the nature of the amendments that are proposed is such that they shouldn't necessarily alter the bill significantly, and they're fairly straightforward and not ambiguous. I do want to ask the committee's indulgence on this.
I know this committee has worked very well, and we certainly appreciate the enormous co-operation we received, both from the NDP and the Conservative Party, with respect to this bill. I do, however, just want to reiterate the importance of this and the fact that we do need to move forward.
Once again, I apologize. We are open to discussion of the amendments we've put forward.
3:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Julie Dabrusin
I'm still waiting for the final advice on this, but now that we seem to be having a discussion about it, I will allow it. We could go to Monsieur Nantel and Mrs. McLeod. Because it's still on hold and we haven't decided whether this motion could even go ahead, I'll just allow the two of them to speak.
Mr. Nantel, please.
3:55 p.m.
NDP
Pierre Nantel NDP Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC
First, I want to thank Mr. Anandasangaree for apologizing. We have to show good faith in the clause-by-clause study of this bill, given the sensitivities involved.
Even if his apology has been accepted, I'd like to know how much time we will need to debate all of these amendments, especially since we were not able to study them beforehand. It seems impossible to me to debate these very particular amendments without having had the opportunity to discuss them with my colleagues. Perhaps we should suspend the meeting or study all of the other amendments first and look at these later.
I'll close with a broader question to the clerk. What sort of agenda did you have in mind? I can't see how we will manage to do all this unless we extend the meeting till 7:30 p.m. or 8 o'clock this evening. I can't see how we can study all of these amendments, all the more so since there are already 21 we are supposed to study.
3:55 p.m.
Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, CPC
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I was puzzled when my colleague indicated that there were circumstances beyond the minister's control, in terms of getting this to the table. I thought this was a committee process and it was a committee input into clause-by-clause, so I guess we now understand that it is being driven by the PMO.
Having said that, I want to be on the record as saying that, when we vote on these amendments, it is not because we may or may not think they are valuable amendments. We will be voting no to every single amendment that came in at the last minute because it would be absolutely irresponsible for us to look at so many different amendments on the fly.
I want it to be clear that our “no” is going to relate to the inadequacy of any time for the opposition to give proper consideration to this batch of amendments.
4 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Julie Dabrusin
I'm going to hold the conversation because we're still trying to figure out if we can go ahead with it. We have two big green books out.
We still need to pass the budget for this study. Can we go to that, please? I believe that you all have the request for project budget in front of you. I'll open it up for questions and discussions about the budget.
Yes.
4 p.m.
NDP
Georgina Jolibois NDP Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK
I have great concerns regarding the budget.
I understand the amount on the budget. However, I want to state that given the significance of this bill, in my opinion thorough consultation or the bringing in of witnesses should have been done, and we should have taken it further than we did. As an indigenous woman, with my first language being Dene, I find the small amount being spent very disrespectful to indigenous people across Canada.
4 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Julie Dabrusin
Ms. Jolibois, I will comment that this budget is driven by the witness lists that were provided by all parties, and the witnesses were called in the order of priority given by the parties. That's how this budget was set up. Just so you understand, the number of witnesses, as well as who was called and where they were based, was not driven by the budget, but the other way around. It was driven by the lists that were provided by the parties.
4 p.m.
NDP
Georgina Jolibois NDP Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK
For clarity reasons, the process has been driven by the governing party, and they sped up the process so that they could rush through it.
Thank you.
4 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Julie Dabrusin
Seeing no further discussion on the budget for the study of Bill C-91, I will call it to a vote.
Seeing none opposed, it passes.
I'm going to take one more moment to consult with the clerks. I'm going to suspend for five minutes to allow the clerks to continue to look at this question, rather than having us sit. Please don't go far.
4:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Julie Dabrusin
We're going to start again.
Perhaps I'll ask our legislative clerk to explain to us how the rules operate for this motion.
4:10 p.m.
Philippe Méla Legislative Clerk
It's an unusual request. I've been here 18 years, and it's a first for me, hence the time required to give you an answer. We don't have a straight answer for you, as it stands. We have to go in parallel with what the chamber does.
It's possible to pass a piece of legislation in the House at all stages, but it requires unanimous consent. Here's the question: Can we pass through clause-by-clause at committee in one motion? The Standing Orders tell us that we have to go through clause-by-clause. If we take a parallel with the chamber, we come to the same conclusion, that it would require unanimous consent to do it.
4:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Julie Dabrusin
All right. Thank you very much for all that assistance.
The motion was to approve of this legislation in its original form, in its entirety, without amendments.
Do we have unanimous consent for that?
Mrs. McLeod.
4:10 p.m.
Liberal