Canadian Heritage Committee on May 31st, 2016

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

Madam Chair, I would move that this motion is not in order. The bill is not before us at this point in time. We are not in the position to know that it will be before us, and as such I would say that this motion is premature and is not in order for us to vote on at this time without the unanimous consent of this committee.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Ms. Dabrusin.

[Julie Dabrusin, Liberal, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Madam Chair, this is a procedural question about how we're going to allocate our time, and that is squarely between us. We're not disposing of how we would handle this bill. We're not discussing the substance of the bill. We are only discussing committee time, and that's a question of process, so it is properly before us.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

If there is anyone who wishes to speak to this, that's fine.

Mr. Van Loan, you wanted to respond very quickly.

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

It's not a matter of mere process. It's mere process for something for which we don't have carriage as yet. There has been no reference from the House of Commons. As such, we are absent jurisdiction.

We could make procedural decisions on it if we wished to, through unanimous consent, and agree to all respect that. That would require unanimous consent. Absent that, in the absence of the bill's being before us and in the absence of a reference from the House of Commons, we have no capacity at this point in time to deal with it.

I tried in good faith to put forward what I thought was a reasonable, very modest proposal for one meeting with witnesses. We're talking about less than 48 hours to put those together; that's hardly unreasonable. That was rejected.

With that kind of heavy-handed approach and the prospect of one hour in camera with no witnesses to deal with something that isn't even before us and for which we do not have reference, I have no choice but to point to the fact that we don't have jurisdiction to deal with it. There is no reference to this committee from the House of Commons, and any such decision from us is moot under the circumstances.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Because we need unanimous consent to proceed with even the procedural component of this, I will ask Mr. Nantel to speak, and then I will ask for unanimous consent.

Mr. Nantel.

[Pierre Nantel, NDP, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Van Loan, his colleagues, and everyone here want this to go well. I don't think anyone intends to complicate matters for Mr. Bélanger.

Let's clear the air. Mr. Van Loan says that it's not too kosher and that we're moving a little too fast, but that he understands. He wants to have two hours with the witnesses. If that's the deal, it must be clearly indicated. If the Conservatives are ready to step back and negotiate something, let's do it. Mauril Bélanger sincerely cares about this bill. We must not get bogged down in details. The bill may end up being rejected, to your satisfaction, if you are able to convince us. However, we'll at least act quickly so we don't look like a gang of fools who get bogged down in details.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

We do have consideration that this motion to have one hour to discuss Bill C-210 is out of order, and I agree with Mr. Van Loan.

Do we have unanimous consent to deal with this motion? If not, I would like to suggest we amend that motion to say that in the event of the adoption on Thursday of Bill C-210, we would be able to consider this bill and report it to the House on Friday.

[Darrell Samson, Liberal, Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook, NS]

Madam Chair, I'm just throwing something on the table to try to respond to Mr. Van Loan's point. How about if we have the first hour on Thursday for witnesses and the second hour for our business? That way it wouldn't be two full hours, but I think an hour would be at least a compromise that would make this work, because we do need to act as quickly as we can on this issue.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

The language is going to have to say “in the event of the passage of this bill in the House on Thursday”. This has to be part of what we would consider if it is to be order. I just wanted you to know that.

We need to leave, because we're running out of time.

Ms. Dabrusin.

[Julie Dabrusin, Liberal, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

I was just going to propose, as a friendly amendment, that we could perhaps have one hour of witnesses followed by one hour of clause-by-cause study, or actually just “clause”, on Thursday.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Again, the motion is going to have to read that “in the event of the this bill's passage in the House today, that the House deal with this on Thursday”.

Now, Mr. Van Loan, it would seem to me from everyone's vote that you may be the only person with a list of witnesses. Could you get that to us, if this passes, so that we can deal with it on Thursday?

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

On such short notice, I don't believe that's reasonable. I don't believe that's practical. We don't have a reference before us. I think I put forward what was a very reasonable and modest suggestion. I am not asking for anything unreasonable in asking for one meeting. Hearing witnesses at the end of Wednesday is very reasonable.

I don't think even in the modified form.... I will again say that the modified form of this amendment is not proper, because we do not have a reference before us. We are making decisions on something for which we do not have a reference and of which we do not have carriage, and that would require unanimous consent. I simply can't accept that even the amended motion would be in order.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

I'll ask the clerk to rule on Mr. Van Loan's suggestion that even the amended motion, which says “in the event of” would not be in order. Perhaps the clerk can rule on this.

I think the clerk is saying that it is in order to suggest that in the event of adoption of the motion in the House, this motion will be in order. We need to call the vote on it now because we must leave this room, so I will ask for the vote on “in the event of”—

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

Madam Chair, I'm sorry, but I would like to—

[Dan Vandal, Liberal, Saint Boniface—Saint Vital, MB]

The chair just made a ruling. You just want to speak.

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

I can challenge the ruling. I have every right to challenge the ruling on a point of order.

I don't believe that it is appropriate and I don't believe we do have jurisdiction to make such a ruling, by adding words, on something for which we don't have a reference.

We could make such a decision through unanimous consent, through a suspension of our rules, but we do not have a reference here. The House of Commons has not given us jurisdiction over this at this point in time, and we don't know what the House of Commons will give us jurisdiction over or if they will give us anything.

Therefore, while we might be able to, on a consensus basis, set a path, I challenge the ruling that this revised motion is in order. It simply is not.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Sorry, but Mr. Van Loan is challenging the chair.

I would suggest that this committee has quite often discussed future business of the committee on such a basis as “We do not know, but in the event that this is so, we will now put three days to discuss a motion that may not even have been accepted by this committee.” I will—

[Pierre Nantel, NDP, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Madam Chair, my point of order can help you.

I propose that we conduct only one study, without proceeding with a clause-by-clause adoption process. We would spend only two hours studying the bill in the presence of witnesses. It would be a study, and no immediate conclusion would be made. Time is flying. In doing so, we could make progress on our study and then ask the analyst to look at what we've done and to apply it or not.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Can Mr. Nantel...?

[Pierre Nantel, NDP, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Put that in a motion? Absolutely.

I move that we simply study—

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

We have a motion that you were suggesting you would amend completely, is that it?

[Pierre Nantel, NDP, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

That is true. My concern is that since we want this to happen, let's find a compromise. Let's not be too picky on this.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

All right. You are therefore moving an amendment to the motion that was made that says, “in the event of adoption of Bill C-210”, and you are suggesting...?

[Pierre Nantel, NDP, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

I'm suggesting that for now we study the case and that we will see witnesses.