Industry Committee on Nov. 28th, 2023

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Yes, I understand, but I'm hearing from the Conservatives that, if we say “by December 12” instead of “December 12”, that will allow the clerk more leeway to discuss the matter with the witness.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Yes, absolutely. I would say “no later than December 12”.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

All right.

Then someone should move an amendment to the motion.

Who wants to move that amendment?

Mr. Turnbull, the floor is yours.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

I'm sorry. I'm not sure whether Mr. Lemire has made an amendment to the motion itself or not.

Why don't I propose an amendment?

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Go ahead, Mr. Turnbull.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

I'll propose an amendment that we change the word “summons” to “reinvite” and that we change the date to “no later than December 12”. I can read it in full, if you want, but I think you get the gist.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

There is an amendment moved by Mr. Turnbull.

Are there any comments on the amendment?

Mr. Perkins.

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

I have just a quick comment. I would support, as Mr. Lemire said, moving it to the 12th, but I don't support removing the word “summons”.

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Mr. Chair, maybe we can ask Mr. Lemire.

He could move an amendment, as he has already mentioned.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

There is already an amendment. No, there is one by Mr. Turnbull.

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC]

I'm sorry. That was formal. I apologize that I missed it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

There is one by Mr. Turnbull that replaces “summons” with “reinvite”.

This is not the amendment, but I would say that if we had something like “reinvite and, if necessary, summons”, that would give ample latitude to the clerk. However, that's not the amendment on the table, and I'm not moving that amendment. I'm just thinking out loud.

The amendment is from Mr. Turnbull to replace “summons” with “reinvite” and to change the date to the 12th. That's what's up for discussion right now.

Mr. Masse, did you want to intervene?

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Just briefly, that might be the best way to do it. Here's my concern. We don't really want to have to summons somebody if we don't have to, but if somebody is going to be leaving the country and can't be here, then we lose control altogether.

I was there originally when the minister was at.... I still don't think the workers are getting the best due process. Therefore, if I have to vote for this amendment, I will not support it, because I will fall to getting the summons. I don't really want to summons anybody here, but at the same time, because of the workers and the way they are still compromised in this, I can't support their not having their day.

I don't know if there's any other way to do this. If we just do it this way and then nothing happens, then I'll regret that, but I really don't want to summons anybody either. It's a tough thing to do, and I think we're all taking it seriously.

If there's a way to put the two together, I would be open to that. I don't have a solution, though, at the moment. I'm trying to think of how they could word that.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Chair—

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Just give me one second, Monsieur Lemire.

The clerk has highlighted something quite obvious. There is time between now and the 12th. If we are to reinvite the witness, as proposed by Mr. Turnbull, we will have other meetings until then. Just maybe as a note, it's now being discussed that she is leaving the country. She has offered to appear on the 12th, just so we're clear on that.

I have Monsieur Lemire and then Mr. Turnbull.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

First of all, I think it would be wise to split the motion into two parts and to hold two separate votes.

With regard to the word “summon”, Mr. Chair, would you please clarify for us the potentially foreseeable consequences of failing to comply with a summons in this case?

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

I think it amounts to contempt of Parliament.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Consequently, we would commence parliamentary proceedings. I imagine the matter wouldn't necessarily be settled by imprisonment in a dungeon or blows from the black rod.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Then it would be up to the Speaker of the House of Commons to determine the consequences, which I don't know off by heart. I think there are several possible consequences. We really aren't there yet, Mr. Lemire.

We have to consider Mr. Turnbull's amendment, which entails reinviting Ms. Verschuren and changing her appearance date to December 12. That's what's on the table.

Are there any other comments, or can we vote on Mr. Turnbull's amendment?

Mr. Turnbull, go ahead.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

I want to say that summonsing someone is a serious matter. I take it very seriously. I don't think it's necessary, given the fact that Ms. Verschuren has said she is willing to appear on December 12. Why wouldn't we just reinvite her? Then, if, for some reason she doesn't actually appear on December 12, which I wouldn't anticipate given the fact that she's already responded to the committee to say she would be available on that date, then we can deal with the matter after that.

To me, to use a summons when it's not absolutely necessary is, in a way, overstepping in terms of our power as members of Parliament, in my opinion, because it should be used as a last resort. When someone is completely unwilling and has been invited and invited and invited, then it's “No, you need to come to the committee.” This hasn't happened in this case.

We've already had the discussion that, in fact, the committee hadn't deliberated on her being invited at all. The motion itself is a bit confusing, so perhaps I can understand that. However, I've already made that point.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

It's true that the motion was not very directive. It is within my purview as chair to invite the witnesses. We do it all the time with the clerk and the analysts on various studies.

I'll yield the floor to Mr. Perkins on the amendment.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

In the spirit of the reasonable proposal that MP Turnbull just made, and because the witnesses are here, I'm willing to accept it on the understanding that, if she doesn't appear, then we'll issue a summons.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

The amendment is, “the committee therefore reinvites Annette Verschuren to appear before the committee in-person for a period not less than one hour, no later than December 12, 2023”, and the rest stays as is.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

We could even use the words “forcefully reinvite” in the circumstances.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Then we would have to introduce a subamendment.

Mr. Masse, go ahead.