Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you to all colleagues, including those opposite.
Thank you, Mr. Lawrence, for the discussion.
Thank you, Mr. Chambers, for your contribution in both clothing and discussion.
I want to give a brief statement, and then I have another motion I'd like to test for unanimous consent.
On April 19, which was not quite a month ago, we began discussions with all parties on a path forward to study the BIA, and we really, truly focused on trying to find a consensus position. We also tried to focus on improving our study from the year previous.
We did this in three ways. We allocated more time for witnesses. We agreed to send parts of the bill to committees, and we gave those committees more time to be able to do those studies. We also included the various aspects of the bill and which committees they would go to, which was also done by consensus, with everybody contributing to the process—the Bloc, the Conservatives and the NDP, as well as the Liberals.
We excluded a controversial part of that motion, which included an end date, because, given goodwill, if we agreed upon a study plan, no end date would be necessary and we would have more than enough time to study the budget implementation act.
This resolution was designed to be a consensus resolution, but it is our feeling that the Conservatives changed the goalposts consistently to justify never actually starting the study. This is, of course, unfortunate, especially since this is similar to what happened last year.
Recently—as they did at the meeting today—they claimed that the minister would be unwilling to appear for two hours. This was despite assuring the committee that she would appear prior to May 18 in response to Gabriel Ste-Marie's question more than two weeks ago.
Since that assurance, we have faced more than 23 hours of Conservative filibustering. That is time that should have been given to food banks, the Chamber of Commerce and other Canadian stakeholders who could have helped us during all of that time to improve the budget implementation act.
Prior to all of this, we unanimously passed a prestudy motion. We were able to hear from departmental staff, and we sent an invite to the minister. It is that original invite that the minister responded to and it is the reason she is available here today.
What have the Conservatives been filibustering? It is an amendment to the original motion by Daniel Blaikie to invite the minister to appear for two hours. It is unfortunate—and somewhat confusing on our side—that they would filibuster this motion, given that it provides exactly what they were asking for. More importantly, however, it is unfortunate that we are in a position where the Conservatives have held up the study, despite the will of the majority of people who sit around this committee who wanted to proceed with the study.
However, I believe we should not waste this opportunity to hear from the Deputy Prime Minister. I believe that everyone around this table believes we should not waste this opportunity to meet with the Deputy Prime Minister.
In that spirit, and following a very productive discussion with my colleagues opposite, I would seek unanimous consent for the following motion: “That the committee temporarily and immediately suspend debate on the motion on the floor for the purposes of hearing testimony from the Deputy Prime Minister, starting at 12 p.m. on May 16; that during this appearance, no other motion be considered in order and we immediately suspend until her appearance; and that, following the Deputy Prime Minister's appearance, the committee resume debate on the current motion."
Thank you, Mr. Chair.