Evidence of meeting #30 for Canadian Heritage in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was chair.
A video is available from Parliament.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Hedy Fry
There was nothing included, just that there be five hours of debate on Tuesday, the 24th—or whatever that date was—and that, in the following week, we get three five-hour slots.
As you well know, Ms. Thomas, that is not decided by this committee. It is decided by the whips in the House, who agreed that we would get the equivalent of three five-hour meetings, which would be 15 hours. That is going to be concluded or should be concluded today.
Conservative
Rachael Thomas Conservative Lethbridge, AB
Madam Chair, thank you.
I believe, then, with the committee's having agreed to 20 hours of testimony, it's not a maximum of 20 hours. It's not a hard stop at 20 hours. It's just simply that 20 hours is the starting point.
In fact, I can recall that there was discussion around this motion that we could take a closer look at it after we had heard from witnesses for that duration of time. If we deemed it necessary, perhaps we could expand it then. That was part of the conversation that ensued around this table. Of course, it was done in good faith.
It would appear that the good faith is no longer good, because there is no longer a willingness from my counterparts at this table to have the discussion around hearing from more witnesses. I believe that is very sad. We still have 33 witnesses who have not been heard just from the Conservative's list. Then we have more witnesses who were submitted by other colleagues at this table who have not been heard.
I believe it is incumbent upon us to be as thorough as we can possibly be. It would be very nice to hear from more witnesses. I don't believe that this request is unreasonable. Again, there are many times when a committee sets out with an intention and with an understanding, again taken in good faith, that the work of the committee can be reassessed or re-evaluated, and tweaks can be made along the way as more information is granted.
In this case, I think, sure, we're coming to the end of our time. Unfortunately, my colleagues at the table have decided to move this motion in the middle of hearing witness testimony. It was first moved when we had stakeholders at the table. Now it continues to be discussed while we have the Minister of Heritage at the table. Again, no doubt, that's a bit of a quarterbacking effort by the Liberal MPs at this committee.
Also, it's interesting to me that my NDP colleague Mr. Julian.... I moved a motion that pertained to Bill C-11 at another committee, and witnesses were present, and he was quite cruel in many of the words he spoke at that time. I won't repeat all of them, because certainly many of them would be unparliamentary—
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Hedy Fry
Yes, thank you. I was about to tell Ms. Thomas that she should stick to the amendment she made.
Liberal
Chris Bittle Liberal St. Catharines, ON
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I just want to point out that my understanding is that the minister is here until 5:45. We really would like to hear from him. Those who are listening need to know that this vote can take 20 seconds or 30 seconds, and we could get back to hearing from the minister.
Conservative
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Hedy Fry
Thank you. It's not a point of order, Mr. Bittle. I'm sorry.
There was a motion to adjourn this motion, and it was rejected by the majority of the committee, so we are continuing with the debate.
To the Minister, I am very sorry. I know that the minister wanted to be here to answer questions. Unfortunately, the vote is such that the majority of the committee wishes to continue with this debate and not adjourn it.
Continue, Ms. Thomas.
Conservative
Rachael Thomas Conservative Lethbridge, AB
I find it interesting, then, that members at this committee are now being permitted to interrupt with so-called points of order in order to launch attacks at me when, at a previous time when a motion was moved, members who represent this side of the table were accused of being “unparliamentary”, rude, disrespectful or unacceptable. I find that very interesting and very rich, coming from Mr. Julian, when he is in fact—
Conservative
Rachael Thomas Conservative Lethbridge, AB
Yes, Madam Chair. That's exactly what I'm doing. Thank you.
So here we are debating a motion. It's interesting, because it came through now in writing from Mr. Housefather, but it was actually Mr. Bittle who put the motion forward at first, and then passed the mike off to Mr. Julian. And then Mr. Julian spoke for a little while, and then Mr. Champoux spoke for a little while—
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Hedy Fry
And then the clerk, Ms. Thomas, read the motion in English and French. We are now clear about what that motion is. Can we please continue with your amendment.
Thank you.
Conservative
Rachael Thomas Conservative Lethbridge, AB
And then, yes, of course, that brings us to this place in time, where I have put forward an amendment. Of course, that amendment asks for a more reasonable allotment of time for the deadline for amendments to Bill C-11 to be due at committee. We've asked that they be due three days before the start of clause-by-clause—which seems fairly reasonable—because, of course, we want to make sure that we've heard from all of the witnesses before we are expected to hand in amendments. We want the right allotment of time to be able to go through the testimony we've received at this committee. There have been many important voices that have been heard here. But then in addition to that, there are also voices that have not been heard at this committee, voices that have not been given an opportunity to come and to testify.
Madam Chair, do you wish to speak?
Conservative
Rachael Thomas Conservative Lethbridge, AB
Okay.
Again, my preference would be for a new motion, which I'm not permitted to put forward so I've simply put forward an amendment I believe is reasonable. But, of course, my preference would be that we actually have a fair and reasonable conversation around actually continuing this study at this committee in order to hear from witnesses who have not yet been heard from. That would be my preference.
Certainly I believe that's a fair ask, however, again, that doesn't seem to be the conversation on the table. The conversation, then, is around amendments, and when they're going to be due. That loops back around, though, in this circular motion, back to this place of we'd really like them due later than Friday at 4 p.m., which is now fewer than 24 hours away. The reason why we want to push that deadline back a bit is because we want an opportunity to hear from other voices.
Even today, right now, the Liberal members, the NDP member and the Bloc member have determined that we are not going to hear from the minister today. So in making that determination—
Liberal
Conservative
Rachael Thomas Conservative Lethbridge, AB
Madam Chair, I would ask that you truly make sure this is a point of order.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Hedy Fry
Ms. Thomas, I think I have been ruling extremely fairly, so don't presuppose how I'm going to rule.
Mr. Bittle.
Liberal
Chris Bittle Liberal St. Catharines, ON
Thank you so much, Madam Chair.
The minister is stilling right here. He's ready to go. The vote on the amendment will take one minute, and then on the motion, and then we—
Liberal
Conservative
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Hedy Fry
Mr. Bittle, that is not a point of order, I'm sorry.
Ms. Thomas, I would like, though, to comment on the premise that you put forward to this committee that in the past, when the committee has decided to look at a study, and we were able to extend it or not, that was because on all of those studies there was a deadline motion. It was either a minimum of four meetings, or at least four meetings, or a maximum. There was no such thing in this unanimous agreement by this committee with regard to the meetings that were going to held with three meetings of five hours each during the week of May 20.
That has been accomplished. We now need to move on to clause-by-clause. You are setting a deadline for clause-by-clause. Can you speak to that and not to the issue of having more witnesses or not having more witnesses, because then I would have to rule your motion out of order because it would be completely contrary to the original motion on the floor that you're seeking to amend. If you're going to speak to deadlines, please speak to deadlines.
Ms. Thomas.