Evidence of meeting #32 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 c-11.
A recording is available from Parliament.
5:55 p.m.
The Clerk
Yes, Dr. Fry, you have Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bittle, Mr. Waugh, Ms. Goodridge and Mr. Lemire.
5:55 p.m.
Liberal
5:55 p.m.
Conservative
Rachael Thomas Conservative Lethbridge, AB
Thank you, Chair.
I believe I was able to capture most of the subamendment. However, I may have missed a few points.
I believe the bottom line is that Mr. Julian is proposing that we simultaneously study Bill C-11 in clause-by-clause, while also taking on the study with regard to Hockey Canada. Is that correct?
5:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Hedy Fry
That seems to be what he is suggesting.
Mr. Julian, would you like to respond to Ms. Thomas to clarify, please?
5:55 p.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC
Yes, it's exactly that. Three of the four parties tabled amendments last week. This will be asking all of the parties to table their amendments by noon this week, and at the same time we would be starting that study next week in the regularly scheduled Monday and Wednesday meetings.
Yes, we would be moving forward in both ways, and I think it will take extra work, but I think that Canadians would expect us to tackle both important issues.
5:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Hedy Fry
Thank you.
Ms. Thomas, you may continue. Did that clarify things for you?
5:55 p.m.
Conservative
Rachael Thomas Conservative Lethbridge, AB
Yes, Madam Chair, thank you. I appreciate that.
I have some concerns about this subamendment because, in the last meeting, we discussed the importance of the motion with regard to Hockey Canada and having them come forward, along with other witnesses. Ultimately, at the end of the day, our objective within this committee is to stay true to the unanimous consent motion passed in the House of Commons, which called for a study on the sexual assault allegations put forward by an unnamed woman. Then, of course, the Minister of Sport responded by saying that a financial audit was needed of any federal funding that may or may not have been used to cover up the story of gang rape.
It was determined, by unanimous consent in the House, that this study is very important to get to the bottom of. All MPs have agreed with this, and the sport minister has agreed on the importance behind it, so it is incumbent upon this committee to give it its full attention.
My concern is that, if we try to simultaneously carry out responsibility on clause-by-clause for Bill C-11, the governing party would ensure that limited or finite resources, which already exist within the House of Commons, be put toward Bill C-11, because that is a government piece of legislation. Meanwhile, attention on the Hockey Canada study would only be granted if resources happen to be available. It would not be given the priority it deserves. That is—
6 p.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC
Thank you.
These are the two regularly scheduled meetings to which we already have resources allocated. I want to question Mrs. Thomas on relevance, when the two meetings we already have scheduled have resources devoted to them and this study.
6 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Hedy Fry
Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Julian interrupted, but I don't know whether it really was a point of order.
Please continue with your debate.
6 p.m.
Conservative
Rachael Thomas Conservative Lethbridge, AB
Thank you.
For previous motions moved at this committee, I've seen that, even when dates, hours or allotted time are listed, they somehow seem to be optional. For example, the last motion moved at this committee stated that we would hear from witnesses with regard to Bill C-11 and that we would hear from them for four meetings of five hours each. That's not what happened. We were told there would be a minimum of 20 hours of committee testimony. When there was a proposal put on the table about hearing from more witnesses, it was given no attention.
I don't have any good faith remaining with regard to Mr. Julian and his motion, or to the members around this table. I don't trust that Bill C-11 and the Hockey Canada study would simultaneously—
6 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Hedy Fry
Mrs. Thomas, may I remind you, please, that, in fact, that was not a minimum in the motion passed unanimously by this committee. It did give the times, days and dates for the 20 meetings. In fact, if I do my counting correctly, we had 22 hours of debate.
I would also remind the committee that one does not only get testimony from witnesses who appear before the committee in person. One receives briefs. We have been receiving briefs from a lot of people, and reading those briefs is part of the testimony.
I want to remind everyone that this is actually how our hearings work, with regard to witnesses. We have fulfilled everything with regard to the unanimous consent motion passed many weeks ago.
Go ahead, Mrs. Thomas. Please continue.
6 p.m.
Conservative
Rachael Thomas Conservative Lethbridge, AB
Madam Chair, I understand your disruption, because you wanted to correct the record.
I'm just curious whether that's a point of order or the chair's prerogative?
6 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Hedy Fry
You made a statement that was not quite true. You talked about a minimum of 20 hours, and there was no such motion that stated a minimum. The word “minimum” was never used, so I was correcting you, yes, as you were giving information that was not true.
6:05 p.m.
Conservative
John Nater Conservative Perth—Wellington, ON
On a point of order, Madam Chair, it's John Nater. I don't think this is a point that really needs to be bludgeoned too badly, but I want to clarify this. I have the minutes of that meeting in front of me and just wanted to clarify that the words “minimum” and “maximum” aren't in the motion. It was never—
6:05 p.m.
Conservative
John Nater Conservative Perth—Wellington, ON
It was never in the.... The maximum of 20 hours was never there, and it never—
6:05 p.m.
Conservative
John Nater Conservative Perth—Wellington, ON
—said minimum either, for that matter. It was simply stating the hours. I do have the motion in front of me from that meeting.
6:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Hedy Fry
Indeed, I have the same motion in front of me. It was very clear, not only the date for the five-hour meeting, but that, the following week of May 30, one would have another 15 hours of hearings. That was completed. There was no word “minimum” and no word “maximum” in that unanimous decision done in good faith by this committee.
6:05 p.m.
Conservative
John Nater Conservative Perth—Wellington, ON
Yes, Madam Chair, I agree. That was the motion at the committee and we've achieved that, but that doesn't preclude any additional motions from this committee. The committee did fulfill that motion, but that doesn't automatically mean that we do anything after that. Presumptions and assumptions always get us into trouble, but we're now at the point where we're doing the next thing.
The motion is what the motion is. There was never a maximum or minimum included in it. It was simply that we would hear 20 hours' worth of witnesses. Now we are moving on to next steps. I wanted to clarify that for the sake of the committee.