Evidence of meeting #33 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 justice.
A video is available from Parliament.
2:45 p.m.
Liberal
Julie Dabrusin Liberal Toronto—Danforth, ON
I just wanted to clarify. Was that after the expert panel on Monday?
2:45 p.m.
Liberal
2:45 p.m.
NDP
Heather McPherson NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
I just wondered whether we could put a time constraint on that. My worry always is that we get bogged down and don't do the work that we need to do. Would Mr. Waugh be willing to accept a limit in how long we postpone, regardless?
2:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Scott Simms
If I may, Mr. Waugh? I think he's saying that he is extending an invitation for Tuesday or Wednesday. I think that's where it ends. I think there is an implied limitation within that, if I'm reading this correctly.
2:45 p.m.
Liberal
2:45 p.m.
Conservative
Kevin Waugh Conservative Saskatoon—Grasswood, SK
Yes, I think so. We would like him before the panel, but I think we put the cart before the horse here because some experts on the panel—
2:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Scott Simms
Mr. Waugh, I have to give Mr. Rayes the floor. If it's a point of debate, you can just clarify. Is it Tuesday or Wednesday?
2:45 p.m.
Conservative
Alain Rayes Conservative Richmond—Arthabaska, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I want to respond to what Ms. McPherson said. The biggest delay is due to the fact that we cannot move forward as long as the minister has not appeared.
If the Liberals genuinely want to move this bill forward, they will make sure the Minister of Justice appears before the committee for one hour. Point 3 of the motion clearly stipulates that clause-by clause consideration will be suspended until the committee has heard from both ministers. Points 1 and 2 have to be completed in order for us to resume clause-by-clause consideration of the bill.
It's hard to set a stricter time limit than that. It's quite surprising that the minister isn't here today.
2:45 p.m.
Conservative
Rachael Thomas Conservative Lethbridge, AB
Thank you, Chair.
I just have a further point of clarification here to make sure we don't have to walk around this again.
I would offer this friendly amendment to my colleague's motion, that the minister would come before the expert panel before Wednesday—that he would come, that he would appear and that he would testify, not just be invited.
2:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Scott Simms
Let's bear in mind that the amendment has to be in line with what was originally proposed. I'm not sure. I'm going to seek some expert advice.
2:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Scott Simms
One moment, Mr. Housefather.
Are you asking to compel attendance here, Mr. Harder? We can't do that, right?
2:45 p.m.
Conservative
Rachael Thomas Conservative Lethbridge, AB
I'm simply saying that for us to move forward with hearing from other witnesses and to move onto clause-by-clause, the minister would need to testify.
2:50 p.m.
Liberal
2:50 p.m.
Conservative
Alain Rayes Conservative Richmond—Arthabaska, QC
Ms. Harder is not a member of the committee. All four Conservative members are here. She cannot propose an amendment to the motion.
2:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Scott Simms
Yes, you are correct. Thank you, Mr. Housefather.
I'm sorry Ms. Harder, but you're unable to move an amendment. Thank you.
Mr. Aitchison.
2:50 p.m.
Conservative
Scott Aitchison Conservative Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
May I propose an amendment to this motion, that it read that the minister actually appear before the committee, rather than our just inviting him?