Look, I know we're going around and around here, and I think it has been said, but there are big problems here with this, and we have to get this straight and right.
When a minister comes here, a minister who's trained in law, words matter. When a minister states—and I know this has been stated over and over—that there are amendments, and the minister agrees to provide these amendments.... The National Post said:
While a spokesperson for Champagne initially said Friday the government plans to publish the amendments “as soon as possible—aiming for next week,” the ministry later said that the government won’t actually provide the full text of the amendments until the study is completed.
It was stated to the committee that he was going to do this in good faith, and afterwards he admitted that he didn't have those amendments. Again, this is in good faith. This is why we have to go to a motion.
Mr. Lemire, if you would like to do an amendment, let's just amend section (f) and get that off there. In good faith, let's get the amendments to the committee, not for us, but for the fact that I have calls coming in—I'm sure you have had calls too—from witnesses, and we hope to get this bill right. We all want this bill to work. They have all stated, “I don't know what I'm actually testifying on because the amendments aren't there.”
Unless we think this is going to be a 7,000-word essay that we're asking for that needs to be proofread and perfected, I think we're asking for pretty reasonable grounds, when words matter. We have asked for something very simple. If we take section (f) out of here, then certainly I think this would allow us to continue the study, move on and get the things we want.
I would certainly be willing to offer that as an amendment, Mr. Chair, that we remove section (f), which means we continue with the study and just get the information we need. If we don't do this and we don't go through this motion.... Already half of this committee is upset, but it's not about the committee. It's about letting the people who are putting in their time to be witnesses understand exactly what the minister has proposed two years later to the original bill. I think that's the whole premise of this. We need those amendments in writing.
We're not asking for anything that's out of the ordinary, or something that's really hard. I'm sure the staff here would agree that what has been stated on paper could be easily drafted as amendments, and we would go on our merry way with those witnesses, with the committee, having respect for the fact that the minister already, from this article in the National Post, agreed to this.
Why don't we take section (f) out and not suspend the testimony that's coming forth? Let's not see this happen again. Let's move forward. We have a lot of great witnesses. I know we would like to see it split into a few different parts. Right now I think we're agreeing to study the privacy portion first, and then AI, but we don't want to get into this every time we have to deal with a section, and we certainly don't want to get into this in the House. We want to make this smooth and go forth correctly.
Mr. Chair, I'm going to make the amendment that we remove section (f) from the motion. We're going to remove “directs that all further meetings in relation to Bill C-27 be postponed.” With that amendment, we will just continue the study.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.