Canadian Heritage Committee on March 26th, 2021

[Han Dong, Liberal, Don Valley North, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

Given the fact that my motion was the first one moved today and I believe the notice was given prior to Ms. McPherson's motion notice, I believe that my motion should receive the first chance for debate and for the members to consider. Having said that, I recognize that there is great similarity in the two motions, and I'd be happy to accept friendly amendments that would satisfy Ms. McPherson's intent in her motion.

I also want to point out that although my motion didn't specifically say a certain number of days before responding, Standing Order 109 requires the government to respond within 120 days, which is shorter.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Right. Thanks for pointing that out.

I have to go with the list I have here.

Mr. Rayes, please.

[Alain Rayes, Conservative, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Point of order again.

I'd like to have one more clarification, if I may. I may sound insistent today, but these are things that we all learn by sitting in committee.

When we received the motion by email from the clerk, it was in the name of Mr. Housefather. Yet it is not Mr. Housefather who is making this motion today. I wonder if we are following the rules by debating his motion now and if we should not move on to Ms. McPherson's motion right away.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Yes, that is fine. Mr. Dong is replacing Mr. Housefather today, and he's able to move and debate the motion.

Okay, let's go to the next person on this list.

Ms. Dabrusin.

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

I just wanted to make sure that my motion is in the queue and just to point out that if we have unanimous consent from everyone to add that extra time, then we don't actually have to debate it; we can just move on.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Correct.

Ms. McPherson.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

The only thing I would say in terms of Mr. Dong's comments is that he interjected himself in this committee before the committee meeting was started. I know you have already said that you didn't notice that, and I'm sure we could go back and take a look, but I think everybody in this room does know that.

Also, I would just put forward that there do not need to be any friendly amendments in my motion that I put forward, so we could just accept it, and I think we have the support of this committee to do so.

That would be all I would put forward for my intervention at this time.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

I realize that, Ms. McPherson, but just to put yourself in my position for a moment, let's assume that he did raise his hand before we started. It didn't disqualify him from raising the hand from the beginning of what I saw. Then it becomes the chair's discretion as to who I recognize first. Rather than randomly pick someone, what I've done in the past on another committee is I would go to the speaking order of who's asking questions. If I see all four parties with their hands up, I would most likely pick the Conservatives first, then Liberal, the Bloc, then NDP. We're living in a virtual world where hands go up and down electronically. I'm trying to surf my way through this, so please, I ask for your patience on that.

Mr. Dong, go ahead.

[Han Dong, Liberal, Don Valley North, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

I don't mean any disrespect to the permanent members of this committee. This is a very personal issue for me, and I think as parliamentarians we have a rare opportunity to collect into our official record the thoughts and recommendations from the Asian community in Canada.

I want to respectfully ask you, Mr. Chair, if you could consult with the clerk to see if my motion can be debated now. I know the support for the study is there. I don't want there to be a long back and forth.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Mr. Dong, I'm not diminishing the gravity of the subject matter; however, I do not want to commence a debate right now, before we decide what we're debating.

Monsieur Rayes, go ahead.

[Alain Rayes, Conservative, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

With regard to this situation, we have two motions that look similar, despite some important differences.

From our side, we would be more inclined to support Ms. McPherson's motion. That being said, given that the two motions are quite similar, Ms. McPherson could have a discussion with the Liberal member who tabled the other motion. I think that on Monday they could come up with another proposal. If they both agree, we will support the motion quickly. If there is no agreement, I will call for a vote, and we will each decide which one to choose.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Monsieur Champoux, did I see your hand up?

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Chair, I wanted to propose an amendment to Ms. McPherson's motion that would take into account the other motion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Monsieur Champoux, before you go with amendments, we haven't yet decided which motion is on the floor. I'm sorry, but first things have to come first.

I'll go to Ms. McPherson, and then I'll go to Mr. Shields. I'm going to have to ask you to please keep this as brief as you can.

Ms. McPherson.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

One thing I didn't hear a comment on from you, Mr. Chair, is my original comment that the motion I have put forward actually has all of the pieces, and that we would not need to amend it to have both of the things that are included in the other motion. I just wanted to flag that.

I'll pass it to Mr. Shields.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Mr. Shields.

[Martin Shields, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

I would move Ms. McPherson's motion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

The motion on the floor is that we resume consideration of Ms. McPherson's motion.

[Han Dong, Liberal, Don Valley North, ON]

Mr. Chair, on a point of order, I don't know why it has come to this. I don't see a significant difference between the two bills, and so I will not agree with the previous comment that there are important, significant differences in the motion.

The fact that I moved it first, and I think according to precedence, in the committees I've been in, the member who.... In this case, I subbed in for MP Housefather, so I have the right to move a motion. I believe I moved my motion first; therefore, my motion should be debated and considered by the members first.

I feel that, for some reason, I've been swept aside in the order of the motions being considered. I just want an explanation for that, through you to the clerk.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Mr. Dong, I can get the clerk to weigh in as well, but essentially it works like this. There is no bearing, as far as the rules state, that you have to do that. The way I see this—and I'll ask the clerk to weigh in as well—is that we've suspended, by way of unanimous consent, the moving of this debate of the motion until the end of the meeting. In terms of the order in which things come in, there is nothing set in stone as to what that should be. I take your point that you could interpret it that way.

Quite frankly, I opened it up so that we could come together on two motions that are extremely similar. I thought maybe we could work something out. It appears we cannot, so what I have right now is a motion by Mr. Shields to deal with Ms. McPherson's motion first, and we'll eventually go to a vote.

Mr. Clerk, would you like to weigh in before I go to Mr. Shields? Go ahead.

[Paul Cardegna, Committee Clerk]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

In the event that it isn't clear which motion the committee is going to retake or resume consideration of, if consensus isn't achieved, then it's incumbent upon a member to use the more formal mechanism of moving to resume consideration of the motion, which is what Mr. Shields has done. It constitutes a dilatory motion, which is non-amendable and non-debatable. Procedurally, the question should be put forthwith.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

I'm going to go to the electronic list again.

Monsieur Champoux.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Chair, we seem to have forgotten some parts of the discussion.

With all due respect to the procedures and rules, and particularly to Ms. McPherson, these two motions are similar, except for a few details. In addition, we all see that this motion has a very personal significance for Mr. Dong.

The conclusion to move immediately to a vote on Ms. McPherson's motion may be worth discussing. I do not want to delay the process on this Friday afternoon, but we are currently having a lengthy discussion about two motions that are very similar and for which the outcome will likely be the same.

We should consider the very personal aspect of this for Mr. Dong.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Yes, there's no doubt about that.

Instead of sliding into an actual debate on the motion's content itself, we have to step back to decide which motion comes first. The clerk just pointed out that what is currently on the floor from Mr. Shields is to vote on Ms. McPherson's motion going first. We're going to go to that vote right now.

Again, just as a reminder, we now have a motion to debate Ms. McPherson's motion first.

Monsieur Rayes.

[Alain Rayes, Conservative, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

That's what I wanted to make sure of.

So, at the request of Mr. Shields, we will vote on whether we will vote on Ms. McPherson's motion before Mr. Dong's. Then we can debate Ms. McPherson's motion. Those who wish to propose amendments will have the opportunity to do so before we formally vote on the motion. Is that correct?