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.
2:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Scott Simms
I'm sorry, everybody probably heard that but me. Could you repeat that one more time? I apologize.
2:50 p.m.
Conservative
Scott Aitchison Conservative Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON
I will propose an amendment to Mr. Waugh's motion, that the Minister of Justice actually appear before the committee and testify before we continue with clause-by-clause.
2:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Scott Simms
Are you saying that you want to invite the minister? The wording you use compels him to come here, but we can't do that.
2:50 p.m.
Conservative
Scott Aitchison Conservative Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON
If I may, Mr. Chair, what I'm saying is not that we're issuing a subpoena to the Minister of Justice; we're saying that we won't continue with clause-by-clause until he comes.
If that compels the government to send him or compels Mr. Guilbeault to get on the phone and say, help me out; you're my partner in whatever here, so come.... I think it compels the government to be a little more engaged with us on this issue.
2:50 p.m.
Conservative
Alain Rayes Conservative Richmond—Arthabaska, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I find it incredible that the committee has to include a note stating that it must hear from the minister before hearing from the experts. If we must, we must.
I repeat, I checked the transcript from Monday's meeting. I did indeed go to the trouble of asking all the committee members before we voted. Everyone agreed before the vote. I asked the question explicitly to be certain I understood what we were voting on. I asked whether we would be hearing from both ministers before hearing from the experts. No one objected. No one made a single comment. I even pointed out that everyone had nodded their head. With all due respect, Mr. Chair, even you pointed it out.
It's fine to repeat it, but I do want to point out to everyone that that was what we had agreed on. I have the transcript in front of me. Even though we all received it, I can email it to anyone who may have doubts.
I wanted to make that clear, Mr. Chair.
2:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Scott Simms
Mr. Rayes, just for a point of clarification, I understand what you are saying. If the understanding from everybody was that they would both appear along with the charter statement, that is true, but the remedy you are seeking is one that I cannot provide. It would mean that you're compelling the minister to be here, and I cannot do that. We as a committee cannot do it.
I appreciate that as a point of debate, but right now we're still on the motion.
Ms. McPherson.
2:50 p.m.
NDP
Heather McPherson NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
Mr. Chair, it is challenging for me to keep track of all of the different subamendments and amendments being put forward. Is there any chance for us to get this in writing?
I realize we are running out of time. I'd be happy to stay longer in this committee meeting. If there is any chance for us to get that sent out to all of the members of the committee so that we can reflect upon it and come back....Even two minutes would be helpful.
2:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Scott Simms
We'll do that. We'll suspend for literally two minutes, if you wish to gather your thoughts.
2:50 p.m.
An hon. member
Once we have the motion mailed to us....
2:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Scott Simms
All right folks, we're back from suspension.
I just want everyone to know, because this is happening very quickly when it comes to the motion and now an amendment, that I think we have to proceed.
Before I go to Mr. Housefather, however, I need to go to Mr. Aitchison. We need some serious clarification over what the amendment is that he's trying to do.
The motion we currently have is that we extend an invitation to the Minister of Justice to appear Tuesday or Wednesday. Mr. Aitchison, I'm going to caution you on this one. We cannot use language that compels the minister to be here, as we cannot compel his attendance.
Mr. Aitchison, before I go to Mr. Housefather, can you provide the clarification on the amendment that you proposed?
2:55 p.m.
Conservative
Scott Aitchison Conservative Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON
Maybe I need to ask you a question, then, Mr. Chair.
My amendment spoke specifically to not proceeding with clause-by-clause until we hear the minister at the committee. Does that compel him? Would you rule it to be a motion that compels him to do something he doesn't want to do?
2:55 p.m.
Conservative
2:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Scott Simms
You can make an amendment that states that.... Let me get this right. What you want to do is delay all this until the minister arrives.
2:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Scott Simms
All right. You want to delay Bill C-10. You want to delay the expert panel.
2:55 p.m.
Conservative
2:55 p.m.
Conservative
Alain Rayes Conservative Richmond—Arthabaska, QC
Yes, thank you, Mr. Chair.
I would have agreed, and I do agree with Mr. Waugh's original motion. I do not agree with Mr. Aitchison's amendment.
We have a panel of four people who are very busy, highly respected, influential people who have put time aside in their schedule to come on Monday. I don't believe that anything justifies delaying that expert panel on Monday.
I am totally comfortable with an invitation that says the Minister of Justice should be asked again, re-invited by the committee, to come on Tuesday or Wednesday of next week. It is perfectly within the purview of the committee at that point, if the Minister of Justice doesn't come, to not proceed to clause-by-clause. Nothing that we say today binds us next Tuesday. Even if we were to adopt Mr. Aitchison's amendment today, it wouldn't stop anyone from putting forward a motion after the expert panel on Monday to proceed with clause-by-clause.
Let's see what happens. Let's agree to invite the minister for Tuesday or Wednesday. Let's proceed with the panel on Monday. The chair will tell us on Monday the status of the minister's invitation after the expert panel, and then we'll decide what more we need to do or not do.
I thought we had consensus to proceed with the expert panel on Monday and invite the minister for Tuesday or Wednesday. Then, it's always up to the committee at that time what they choose to do. Our Conservative colleagues have shown us that they can delay meeting after meeting, anyway, if they don't want to proceed.
I don't think the amendment is necessary. Again, I think there was a consensus on Mr. Waugh's motion.
We're at three o'clock. Mr. Chair, if Mr. Aitchison would perhaps withdraw the amendment, my suggestion is that we adopt Mr. Waugh's motion, we do the expert panel on Monday, and we see then what happens with the minister's response to our invitation. If we finish early enough, perhaps the clerk can send it out this afternoon.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
3 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Scott Simms
Were you directly asking a question to Mr. Aitchison?
Okay, you weren't.
3 p.m.
Conservative
Alain Rayes Conservative Richmond—Arthabaska, QC
Unless, Mr. Chair, you tell me that Mr. Aitchison has the ability, personally, to withdraw his amendment—I think, once it's on the floor, the committee has to agree unanimously to withdraw it, because it's no longer his—then I don't have a question for Mr. Aitchison. I would suggest that, if my colleagues agree, it should be removed or voted against so we can proceed to Mr. Waugh's motion.
Thank you, sir.
3 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Scott Simms
We can proceed to the vote, if you wish, but I see a lot of hands up right now.
Go ahead, Mr. Champoux.
3 p.m.
Bloc
Martin Champoux Bloc Drummond, QC
Mr. Chair, I, too, thought we had reached a consensus on Mr. Waugh's motion, which I think is entirely reasonable. The ball is in the Liberals' court. It's up to the government, the party decision-makers.
We will send the minister another invitation, in the hope that he will appreciate the sense of urgency and the fact that his refusal to appear or delayed appearance puts the committee's work on shaky ground.
I was quite happy with the compromise that would have the committee hear from the witnesses on Monday. As Mr. Housefather pointed out, they are extremely busy and credible people. That's why we chose them. I appreciate Mr. Waugh being receptive to that. I think we can come back to the motion, hear from the panel on Monday, as scheduled, and cross our fingers that the Minister of Justice shows up on Tuesday. If not, I will be floored. It will show that he truly does not grasp the urgency of the situation.