Canadian Heritage Committee on June 7th, 2021

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

Mr. Chair, I want to revisit the point that there's absolutely a need to move to time allocation, because we could sit all summer. We are going through entire meetings without voting on a single amendment. For the past several meetings, even when we do vote on an amendment, it's one or two a meeting. At that pace, we will not complete the study of Bill C-10 . We will just keep going for months and months and months.

I do believe there's a bit of a disconnect, if anything, on that, to say that if we just add in a few more meetings this summer we'll be able to complete it. That's clearly not what's been shown over the past weeks and even, I would say, months.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Folks, once again we seem to be debating the overall motion. Can we just focus first on the amendment? You can tie it into the main motion, but I really need you to talk about Mr. Champoux's amendment in the meantime.

Mr. Housefather.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I really appreciate Mr. Champoux's contributions, which he always makes in good faith.

I have nothing against his amendment, but I do object to the main motion by Ms. McPherson. I'll tell you why.

I want to say this with all my friendship for Ms. McPherson, who, again, I respect very much as a member of the committee. Normally, I would agree with this motion. Normally, I would agree that we should work all summer to get a law right and to continue debate as long as there was actual debate going on that was reasonable with respect to each amendment, but that's not happening.

In the last meeting, we spent two hours filibustering on an amendment that each and every member of this committee voted against. Each and every member of this committee was going to be against it from minute number one, yet we spent two hours on it. As someone who has really tried in good faith to work with members of all parties on this committee from the beginning, I have at this point grown completely exasperated by what has happened in terms of us not working in good faith, so I see no reason for us to sit here having meeting after meeting of two or four hours and not advancing on the bill.

I don't see any other alternative to move forward at this point, unless I see a huge change in comportment from the Conservatives, than going to time allocation. I'll vote for Mr. Champoux's subamendment, but I'm going to vote against the motion as amended, because I just don't see that it's going to help us in any way.

Thanks very much for the effort, though, Ms. McPherson.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

I see Monsieur Rayes. We're on the amendment by Mr. Champoux.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I think what Mr. Champoux is proposing is entirely appropriate. It shows great respect for the work of parliamentarians and the House leaders, who are trying to arrive at a democratic compromise through their talks. I think the amendment is in line with what Ms. McPherson is proposing.

However, it's unfortunate that all the blame is being laid at the Conservatives' door. I repeat, we are where we are because the minister brought forward a bad bill, plain and simple. The bill was full of flaws. It has been amended along the way, so it's entirely appropriate that we take the time to study it properly, instead of being subjected to a time allocation motion by the government, through the House of Commons, to expedite the committee's work. That hasn't happened in more than 20 years, not even under Mr. Harper's Conservative government.

For the past six years, the Liberal leader has said over and over again that committees work independently. The Liberals on the committee are doing the best they can. This is a very unusual situation.

Ms. McPherson, I repeat, we are relatively in favour of your motion. I'm not sure I fully understood what was said after I last had the floor, but I think it's one meeting too soon to adopt the motion, since a time allocation motion may be coming.

If we must adopt your motion only to have it nullified by the gag order imposed by the Liberals, then we must. If not, we can move forward.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

I had my hand up, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

I have Ms. Dabrusin, and then I have Mr. Champoux.

Ms. Dabrusin.

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

No, I think you had Monsieur Champoux before me. My hand is down.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Okay.

Mr. Champoux, go ahead. I'm sorry about that.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

When someone moves an amendment to a motion, a debate is obviously supposed to follow.

Fundamentally, I'm somewhat resistant to the idea of doing things out of order. I am of the mind that we should discuss Bill C‑10 as long as possible because I firmly believe that we should pass it. Obviously, my first choice is not to extend into the summer, but if we must, let's do it.

I put forward an amendment to ensure that, if Ms. McPherson's motion was adopted, the discussions under way between the party leaders would not interfere with the decisions we made here, in committee. I simply wanted to make sure we were going to do things in an orderly way.

That said, as was pointed out earlier, there is no point holding additional meetings if we are going to spend them dragging things out, filibustering and preventing Bill C‑10 from ever seeing the light of day, because there are groups who are strongly opposed.

I wanted to make clear my intention, which is essentially to give us some peace of mind in light of the discussions between the party leaders, should Ms. McPherson's motion be adopted.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Ms. Dabrusin, go ahead.

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

I move to adjourn the debate.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Did everybody hear that?

We'll go straight to the vote on the motion put by Ms. Dabrusin to adjourn the debate.

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

Mr. Chair, I have a point of order. I'm actually looking for some clarification.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Go ahead, Mr. Rayes.

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

Can you explain what Ms. Dabrusin's motion means procedurally? I just want to be sure I know before voting.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

It means we are going to adjourn the debate on Ms. McPherson's motion.

Is everybody clear on that?

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Do we then vote for it or not?

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

No, we adjourn the debate. It's as simple as that. We then go on to what we were dealing with earlier, which was clause-by-clause on Bill C-10.

Is everybody okay?

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

No.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Go ahead, Mr. Rayes.

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

By requesting that the debate be adjourned, Ms. Dabrusin is preventing Ms. McPherson's motion from going to a vote. Is that right?

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Maybe I'm not explaining it well.

Madam Clerk, would you like to explain the procedure on adjournment of debate?

[The Clerk]

All right.

Adjourning the debate means that the committee will not discuss Ms. McPherson's motion for the remainder of the meeting.

For all intents and purposes, the debate can be resumed at a subsequent meeting, but until the end of this particular meeting, we will not resume debate on the motion to extend into the summer.

There will be no vote on the motion by Ms. McPherson at this time. The vote we would be holding would be whether or not the committee wants to adjourn the debate.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Is everyone clear on that?

We're adjourning the debate.

Madam Clerk, we are voting on the motion to adjourn the debate.

(Motion agreed to: yeas 6; nays 5)

The debate has been adjourned. We cannot bring that debate back into play for the rest of this meeting, but we can at subsequent meetings, just so you know, and that will be the motion by Ms. McPherson.

We are now proceeding to clause-by-clause.

We're going to pick up again with a CPC amendment; however, that being said, we have to take a break at this time. I need to have a discussion with the table staff regarding the proposed amendments, so I'm looking at about five minutes.

We're going to suspend for about five minutes. Thank you.