Canadian Heritage Committee on March 26th, 2021

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

That is correct.

We're going to call the vote....

Mr. Dong.

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

I understand which motion is on the floor right now and we can go to the vote. For all the reasons I listed earlier, I won't be able to support it. I know that the motion is non-debatable, so I'm not going to debate. I'm just saying that —

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

I've prolonged it enough already, Mr. Dong. I have to go to this vote right now.

(Motion negatived: nays 6; yeas 5)

Now we have two motions, notwithstanding Ms. McPherson's motion, that we want to deal with.

Mr. Dong, you have the floor. Go ahead.

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

Thank you, Chair.

I don't want to waste too much of the members' time. I canvassed the majority of the members on the committee yesterday after the notice was put forward, and I understand that there is broad support for this motion. The attacks we've witnessed in recent days are, I think, a symptom of a prolonged and profound challenge in our society. There have been a lot of recommendations, round tables and discussions taking place over the years. I have spoken to many advocates.

As parliamentarians in Ottawa, as members of the highest institution in the country, having official—

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

To begin with, my apologies, Mr. Dong. Were you finished? I meant to go to you as I thought you had a point of order, but you did not.

I didn't officially start the debate, but that's okay. It seems like you have started the debate, and that's fine too. I don't think anybody would object to that.

I have Mr. Shields.

[Martin Shields, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

Initially, Mr. Chair, I appreciated your direction when you asked the two proposers of those motions to get together to see if they could resolve them. There is no motion on the table. I'm close to saying that we need to quit. If those two can't get together.... That's the direction you gave them. We have no motion on the table. We're way over time.

I'm asking you, Mr. Chair, to take some direction, as you initially said, and let's see if we can get this done.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Okay.

Go ahead, Ms. McPherson.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

I also think it's very important. The NDP has been doing an awful lot of work on this; my colleague Jenny Kwan has done an awful lot of work on this, and it is very important to our party.

It's more important to me to get this motion passed. While I strongly believe my motion is much stronger for a number of reasons, I'm happy to amend the motion we are debating to ensure that it is at least three meetings and that the minimum of 180 calendar days is added.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

To be clear, you are moving an amendment. Essentially, that takes the sentence in your motion that talks about 180 days, and you want to insert it into the motion we're currently debating, which was moved by Mr. Dong.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Also Mr. Housefather, yes, and that it be at least three meetings, please. It's very important that we have adequate time for this.

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

Can I clarify with you?

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

One second, Mr. Dong. I'm going to get this clarification first on this amendment before we go to Ms. Dabrusin and then you. No, it appears Ms. Dabrusin does not want in.

Go ahead, Clerk.

[Paul Cardegna]

Thank you very much.

Just for my benefit and Aimée's, to ensure that we understand the amendment being moved, my understanding is that the motion moved by Mr. Dong will be amended by replacing the words “of no more than” with “at least”, which is to say rather than “of no more than three meetings”, it will now read “at least three meetings”, and then to add the following into the motion: “that the committee present its findings and recommendations to the House no later than 180 calendar days from the adoption of this motion”.

Do I have that text correct?

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

I'm sorry. Just so we're clear—

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

I nodded.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Okay. I was just referring to the clerk.

Go ahead, Mr. Dong.

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

Thank you, Chair.

First of all, I wonder it if would be helpful to committee members if I read out the motion again, as amended.

I'm okay with the amendment. I have just one question for Ms. McPherson.

Standing Order 109 requires the government to respond in 120 days, which is shorter than 180 days. Wouldn't it be better to hear back from the government with a comprehensive response in the shorter time frame? That is just a question for Ms. McPherson.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Ms. McPherson, do you want to respond?

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

I'm sorry, but in the motion I'm looking at it does not say that. The one that was sent to the committee does not say that. I absolutely would be happy with 120 days.

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

Yes, because it says that pursuant to Standing Order 109—

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

I don't want a free-for-all conversation, folks. People at Hansard have to record this. It's hard enough to do their jobs. It's Friday afternoon. I need to recognize you first.

Mr. Dong.

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

I'm sorry, Mr. Chair. Obviously, I'm too excited about this motion—in a good way.

Standing Order 109, I believe, by definition—and we can double-check with the clerk—requires the government to respond within 120 days. If that's indeed the case and Ms. McPherson is agreeable to 120 days, then perhaps we should just leave the motion as is for that part.

I'm happy with the other—

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Okay, Mr. Dong. There is a difference. I'm going to allow the clerk to explain it.

[Paul Cardegna]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Dong is absolutely right that Standing Order 109 allows 120 calendar days for the government to present a comprehensive response to a committee report. Ms. McPherson, however, has made an amendment to add into the motion that the committee present its findings and recommendations to the House no later than 180 calendar days from the adoption of the motion. That is to say, the committee is imposing upon itself a deadline of 180 calendar days to present its report.

Once the committee's report is presented to the House, then Standing Order 109 will begin and the 120 calendar days will begin to take effect.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Just as an update, we're still debating the amendment.

Mr. Dong, do you want to respond?