Evidence of meeting #122 for Procedure and House Affairs in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was colleagues.
A video is available from Parliament.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ben Carr
No.
I'm going to assume you said, “point of order.” I'll clarify if I didn't say it correctly.
We are continuing debate because, as soon as an amendment has been moved, we are immediately debating the amendment.
Did I say, “motion as amended”?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ben Carr
I apologize. We are debating the amendment that was proposed to amend the motion.
Go ahead on a point of order, Mr. Duncan.
Conservative
Eric Duncan Conservative Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON
We had a speaking list before you suspended, because you said, “We'll call the question.”
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ben Carr
You are correct. I had Mr. Turnbull and Mr. Berthold.
Ms. Mathyssen, I apologize. I recognized you, but I did have a speaking order.
Mr. Turnbull, did you still want to go?
So I'll give the floor to Mr. Berthold; then it will be Ms. Mathyssen's turn.
Thank you, Mr. Calkins, for the clarification.
I'm sorry about that, folks.
Conservative
Luc Berthold Conservative Mégantic—L'Érable, QC
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
It will come as no surprise if I say that I don't trust Mr. Turnbull's amendment in terms of getting Minister LeBlanc here quickly enough to know what his priorities are and what he's working on right now. The 14‑day deadline in the motion is absolutely essential. I know what I'm talking about, given my experience on August 19, when I attended a meeting of the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development. I had a commitment from the Liberals, behind the scenes, that the Minister of Environment and Climate Change would appear before this committee within 14 days, and we were asked to stop insisting on including that in the motion. Finally, Mr. Guilbeault appeared yesterday, September 17, a month later.
I find it very hard to believe that ministers are acting in good faith when it comes to appearing before the committee if they aren't required to do so within a specific time frame. As a result, I think it's essential to maintain the 14‑day deadline, because since these informal discussions with the Liberals, I no longer trust the ministers to appear quickly. Ministers choose when they will appear based on their political priorities and not on the needs of Canadians and Quebeckers. I find this absolutely unacceptable. I've already put my trust in informal discussions once recently, so I think it's absolutely essential that the 14‑day deadline remain in this motion.
I'll see how the discussions go, but if the 14‑day deadline disappears, expect it to come back one way or another, Mr. Chair, because I don't agree with removing it at all.
Liberal
NDP
Lindsay Mathyssen NDP London—Fanshawe, ON
I appreciate all the discussion on this and the back-and-forth. I would agree with the Conservatives that the part about putting in “as part of the study of Bill C-65” is a bit repetitive, considering the minister would come for that anyway. I'm not sure what the cleanest way to do this is, but I think, to try to bring everyone together—as I always try to do—I could do this two ways.
I think it might work if I first bring forward a subamendment to the amendment. Ultimately, it would change Mr. Turnbull's move to one hour back to two. We would keep the removal of the “14 days of the adoption of this motion”, but we would then remove “as part of the study of Bill C-65”. That's so everyone can come together, move on with this and vote for it.
We all get a bit. We all give a bit.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ben Carr
Ms. Mathyssen, can you can read the subamendment?
Then, colleagues, as a procedural reminder, once Ms. Mathyssen has read the subamendment, we will begin debate on that subamendment. Should there be no debate necessary, we will immediately go to a vote.
Ms. Mathyssen, being mindful of our interpreters, please read slowly. If your team could work on getting a copy of that to—
Bloc
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ben Carr
One moment, please.
Ms. Mathyssen, could your team also just work on getting a copy of the subamendment to the clerk, please?
You have a point of order, Ms. Gaudreau.
Bloc
Marie-Hélène Gaudreau Bloc Laurentides—Labelle, QC
I'm very open when just one small word is changed, but there are a lot of changes in this case. So I won't be able to go any further until I have the documents translated into French. I need them.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ben Carr
Let's wait a moment to see if it's complete.
Ms. Mathyssen, do we, by chance, have a written version of that subamendment yet?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ben Carr
Okay.
Colleagues, we're just going to briefly suspend, because we do have to respect the fact that there are two official languages, and if a member of the committee is asking for the ability to undertake important parliamentary work in their language of choice, we have to honour that.
Is that what you wanted, Ms. Gaudreau?
Okay.
We're just going to suspend very quickly.
Lindsay, might I ask if you could speak to Madame Gaudreau, just so that we can clarify?
We're going to very briefly suspend here, colleagues.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ben Carr
Colleagues, my understanding is that there have been some discussions.
We're going back to Ms. Mathyssen. I lost track of time for a moment.
Where we left off a few moments ago was that we needed a translation piece to come into effect.
Ms. Mathyssen, perhaps you can update the committee as to what discussions were had and where we're at.
NDP
Lindsay Mathyssen NDP London—Fanshawe, ON
I believe that we have provided the clerk with the full changes and that it has been distributed.
Has it not been distributed?
NDP
Lindsay Mathyssen NDP London—Fanshawe, ON
I'll read it slowly to ensure proper translation, but it's fairly simple. The full motion, if it were to be subamended, would now read:
That the committee invite the Minister of Public Safety, Democratic Institutions and Intergovernmental Affairs to appear before the committee for no less than two hours in relation to his priorities for the return of Parliament and his mandate.
Liberal
Conservative
Luc Berthold Conservative Mégantic—L'Érable, QC
Mr. Chair, I would like to amend my colleague's subamendment.
Liberal
Ryan Turnbull Liberal Whitby, ON
I have a point of order.
Chair, as far as I know, in terms of procedure, you can't subamend a subamendment.
Liberal
Conservative
Luc Berthold Conservative Mégantic—L'Érable, QC
You're right, Mr. Chair. I stand corrected.
I would like to ask for unanimous consent to amend the subamendment.
I think we’ve all watered down our expectations a bit. For our part, we're saying that it's urgent to have the minister appear before the Thanksgiving break because of the constraints of the Hogue Commission. We're therefore proposing that we have a meeting with the minister within 21 days of the adoption of the motion, that is before the Thanksgiving break. That would give the minister more time to adjust his schedule.
I think that's a reasonable proposal. Everyone is moving forward with their amendment. As I mentioned earlier, Justice Hogue must absolutely be given the opportunity to have access to all the information. If we have the opportunity to question the minister before Thanksgiving, it will give the foreign interference commission time to do its work properly.
I'm therefore asking for unanimous consent to add “within 21 days of the adoption of the motion” to my NDP colleague's subamendment. I think that would be better.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ben Carr
Colleagues, Monsieur Berthold has asked for unanimous consent, so the first thing we have to deal with is whether or not the committee would like to grant their approval of his unanimous consent request.
I'm looking around the room.
