Canadian Heritage Committee on June 2nd, 2022

[Rick Perkins, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I'll start again because clearly the members weren't hearing what I was saying.

We're dealing with an amendment here to the proposal by the government, with their NDP partner, to limit the amount of time on a very large and important bill that deals with freedom of speech on the Internet. It's about limiting to 24 hours the amount of time members of Parliament have to put forward amendments on this committee.

That's consistent with the approach they've been taking with closure on this bill and many others in the House. I would suggest that the most important part of the legislative process obviously is the ability to study clause-by-clause, to hear from witnesses in committee and to propose amendments. It's really quite appalling that the government chooses to want to limit debate on their bill, the scrutiny of the public on their bill and the proposals that one might make on amendments.

In terms of committees, perhaps the interfering parliamentary secretary would prefer to—

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Mr. Perkins, can you just stick to what you're saying? Casting aspersions on our colleagues is not something we have a tendency to do in this committee.

Thank you.

[Rick Perkins, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

I've heard lots of it already today with regard to my colleague, Ms. Thomas, but I'll move forward on the issue of the closure that the government is trying to bring and the limited time the government is trying to allow for amendments to a very important bill on freedom of speech. It's kind of ironic that a bill that limits freedom of speech on the Internet has a limited time for amendments and a limited time for witnesses to comment.

The chair said, as is the case in other committees, that this committee is in charge of its own destiny. When I looked at the past comments about the 20 hours, I saw that Mr. Julian said that this was a good start as a minimum. Mr. Nater said that we could revisit that partway through.

I think that's what Ms. Thomas is saying with regard to moving the time frame for amendments, which would provide more time for witnesses to hear the minister. The government decided not to hear from him today by rejecting the opportunity to adjourn the debate on this motion to hear from the minister. The NDP and the Liberal members decided to vote to continue this debate and then ironically said that, somehow, we're delaying the debate. It is they who voted to continue this debate, when we were willing to adjourn it.

Perhaps what I could add and consider going forward on this.... Yes, I spoke to this bill on February 28 in the House and asked to join today to be able to question the minister and participate in this, because it is an important bill and more time is needed. I was surprised that the Liberals were trying to limit debate—

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

I have a point of order, Chair.

[Rick Perkins, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

—on the amendments.

I will continue to—

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

I don't know who has a point of order, but there you go.

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

It's Chris.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Go ahead, Chris.

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

Thank you so much.

Mr. Perkins is speaking about everything but the amendment and the motion, so it is not relevant to—

[Rick Perkins, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

I have the floor. I'm allowed to speak about what I want.

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

He's trying to talk over me, Madam Chair.

If he's going to filibuster, he has to do it properly. It needs to be relevant to the subject matter, which is the amendment that's before us.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Thank you very much, Mr. Bittle. I accept that as a point of order.

Mr. Perkins, you still have the floor.

[Rick Perkins, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

I do, and I'm leading up to a point where I think all members would be enlightened by the opportunity to hear from more witnesses and to understand that the time frame that's being imposed by the government on this amendment limits the ability to do so.

The committee has control of its own destiny and can choose to amend it. In fact, three times in the committee that I sit on—the fisheries committee—including on a study put forward by the NDP, we extended it for witnesses. We extended the amendment time on the study we did on the fire on the container ships in Vancouver harbour. We extended the time for amendments on several of our studies. On the current study, we've decided to hear from more witnesses than we originally agreed to, and we'll extend the hearings until the fall.

This isn't an unusual thing that happens—

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Mr. Perkins.

[Rick Perkins, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

Yes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

With all due respect, this committee has the ability to make its own decisions. It made a decision in writing in a motion in English and French that we were to continue to have hearings to amount to 15 extra hours on the week of May 30. We have fulfilled that, so to continue to ask for that kind of change from what the committee unanimously agreed to and to comment on that, I think, is outside of your purview right now, because you were not here when we passed that motion.

I am guided by the unanimous motion passed by this committee. The amendment that Ms. Thomas brought forward has to do with a deadline for amendments. I would prefer that we listen to that debate on a deadline for amendments, please.

By the way, I would like to point out and remind this committee that we have been trying to get this deadline, not today, but since Monday. This committee has had a business meeting to try to bring forward a deadline for amendments. That would have given us Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday and Friday—five days—to make this decision. Each time this was brought up, there was an intervention that prevented us from getting to that particular vote.

This is not something that is new and that suddenly came up today.

Now, Mr. Perkins, you may continue.

[Rick Perkins, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I have a little issue with the perspective you shared with the committee that somehow as a member of Parliament who is substituting into this committee my thoughts or my opinion on what should happen going forward and what's happened in the past somehow is of less value to others.

I am a member of this committee today.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Mr. Perkins, I did not say that, but you were not here. You made it sound like this is something that is happening today. This has been going on now since Monday. This committee has been trying to get one thing and that is a deadline for amendments. Each time that motion was to come to a vote, it has not been allowed to occur.

I'm just giving you that piece of information. That's all.

[Rick Perkins, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

I appreciate that. The democratic right of members of Parliament to put forward ideas to move committees forward or change that, that's part of the committee having its own right and destiny to go forward. There are always opportunities to adjust that. In fact, it happens in most committees.

As such, I would propose a subamendment to the amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

What?

[Rick Perkins, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

That subamendment would be to extend the date in order to, as outlined by Ms. Thomas, allow for more witnesses, including the appearance of the minister at a later date.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

I don't think you can move a subamendment while there is an amendment on the floor.

[Rick Perkins, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

Yes, you can. That's the purpose. I have the floor. I have the ability to move a subamendment to an amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

You can, but I don't know that the chair can recognize it.

[Rick Perkins, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

That would be very unusual under parliamentary rules.