Evidence of meeting #32 for Canadian Heritage in the 43rd Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was waugh.
A recording is available from Parliament.
12:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Scott Simms
Just for clarification, we do have the amendment put forward by Mr. Waugh—
12:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Scott Simms
—but I don't think we have the subamendment yet. Aimée, our clerk, says we don't have it yet. That's why in each and every turn I'm trying to explain what it is.
Again, the subamendment that you do not have is from Mr. Housefather, and it states that instead of Dr. Geist, we would have an expert panel of one person selected by each recognized party at the committee, which would be four different panel experts, along with the Minister of Justice and Minister of Canadian Heritage.
Go ahead, Ms. Harder.
12:25 p.m.
Conservative
12:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Scott Simms
Yes. That is correct.
Keep in mind we have already decided to take out the word “separately”.
12:25 p.m.
Conservative
Rachael Thomas Conservative Lethbridge, AB
Right. Unanimous consent was granted for that. Understood.
12:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Scott Simms
Correct. Right now we're in number 2. That's what Mr. Housefather proposed.
12:25 p.m.
Conservative
Rachael Thomas Conservative Lethbridge, AB
Okay.
I know you're doing your best, Mr. Chair, to keep us on board and help us through this. I am wondering, though, and thinking that it is the custom of this committee to stop and make sure we have something in writing, both for clarity purposes and for translation purposes for the Bloc member, my colleague Mr. Rayes.
Is that possible?
12:30 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Scott Simms
It is possible. We have two things that complicate the situation. We have a vote coming soon within the House of Commons, so we could be in suspension when that happens. The complicating factor is whether I can get unanimous consent from the committee to reconvene after this quick suspension, even if the bells are ringing.
12:30 p.m.
Liberal
12:30 p.m.
Liberal
12:30 p.m.
Liberal
Julie Dabrusin Liberal Toronto—Danforth, ON
As I understand it, Ms. Harder can speak but she cannot vote, and as far as I understand it, none of the voting members has raised an issue with the wording of this subamendment.
12:30 p.m.
Bloc
Martin Champoux Bloc Drummond, QC
Mr. Chair, as Ms. Harder has indicated, I am a stickler on the translation issue and I recognize the importance of having both English and French versions at hand when we debate and vote. However, considering the little time we have before us, I will make an exception in this case, given the importance of what we are about to decide and the joy that flows over me at finally finding a solution to the problem that has been holding us back.
I understand the amendment and the subamendment perfectly well. I am ready to move to a vote as soon as my colleagues are.
12:30 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Scott Simms
Okay. That said, we still have people on the list to speak, but since we now have what seems to be.... We're okay with not having it in writing, but I'm going to again repeat the subamendment by Mr. Housefather, which states that we take the name “Dr. Michael Geist” out and we provide one name from each recognized party on the committee for an expert panel, along with the ministers of justice and Canadian heritage. That is what's being proposed. Everything else is intact.
I see Mr. Aitchison next.
12:30 p.m.
Conservative
Scott Aitchison Conservative Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
We've taken out the word “separately” because we've said that it's okay for all of them to appear together. On Mr. Housefather's subamendment, do we need to actually have some time frames around this expert panel that is coming at a different time than the ministers are? Will one meeting suffice for the expert panel? I'm wondering if there's going to be any discussion about that.
12:30 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Scott Simms
Mr. Aitchison, I may be so bold as to paraphrase Mr. Housefather. Mr. Housefather, if I'm not getting this right, please feel free to stop me, which I enjoy.
What he's asking for is to do this before we reconsider going back to clause. I think the implication as to bringing in the four people for the expert panel and the two ministers was that it should be as soon as possible, right? I see Mr. Housefather nodding, so that's as soon as possible.
12:30 p.m.
Liberal
12:30 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Scott Simms
No, I was trying to do it for you, but if I've mis-characterized, then....
Mr. Aitchison, since you have the floor, can I give the floor to Mr. Housefather?
12:30 p.m.
Conservative
Scott Aitchison Conservative Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON
Maybe he can actually answer my question. I mean no disrespect, sir, but you didn't answer my question.
I'm wondering if we need to put some time frames around the expert panel. Is it going to be one meeting? Do they need more than one meeting? That's what I'm wondering about.
12:30 p.m.
Liberal
Anthony Housefather Liberal Mount Royal, QC
To my good friend Mr. Aitchison, what I had said was that I was hoping the ministers could come on Friday and that the expert panels could be convened for Monday.
I would see two meetings, one with the ministers as soon as possible and one as soon as possible after that with the expert panel.