Justice Committee on Dec. 6th, 2012

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

It is to amend the motion by adding that the reason for requesting the extension is that two sessions of the committee were interrupted by voting in the House of Commons, so we were unable to complete our deliberations on the bill.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dave MacKenzie]

Now I have Mr. Rathgeber.

[Brent Rathgeber, Conservative, Edmonton—St. Albert, AB]

Am I speaking to the amendment, or am I speaking to the motion?

[The Chair, Conservative, Dave MacKenzie]

It's on the amendment.

[Brent Rathgeber, Conservative, Edmonton—St. Albert, AB]

The amendment is incorrect, in fact. It's factually incorrect. Two meetings were not disrupted because of votes. There was one meeting disrupted because of votes when we were dealing with clause-by-clause study. One other meeting was disrupted when we had witnesses.

Those witnesses were rescheduled, but the motion, as I understand it—and I don't know that I do, because it has been amended—is to give this committee more time to provide clause-by-clause consideration of the bill.

If the argument is that two meetings of clause-by-clause consideration were to take place, if that is the purpose for the bill, and the chair has ruled that there has to be a purpose for a bill, I would suggest to the committee that it has to be both a valid purpose and stated accurately, based on accurate facts. The mover of the motion and the mover of the amendment to the motion are factually incorrect.

Indeed two meetings of this committee were disrupted because of priority voting in the House, but one of those had to deal with witnesses. We had the witness from Real Women of Canada, and I believe representatives from both the Human Rights Commission and the Human Rights Tribunal. Thankfully, the members of the commission and the member of the tribunal are residents of Ottawa, so it was not too inconvenient for them to be rescheduled and to come back the next day. The witness from Real Women of Canada was gracious and accepted our apologies for the inability to hear from her on the day she was supposed to testify and did come back the next day to testify.

With respect to vetting or clause-by-clause consideration, it's my recollection that this process started one week ago today. We made some, but very little, progress with respect to clause 1, and there were some amendments. That process was supposed to be completed or at least continued on Tuesday of this week, 48 hours ago, and indeed that proceeding and that scheduled meeting for clause-by-clause vetting or clause-by-clause consideration of this bill was, in fact.... I don't know if it was cancelled or rescheduled.

In any event, it didn't occur because of the mini-marathon of votes regarding Bill C-45, the budget implementation act implementing Canada's action plan—very good legislation, by the way.

In any event, the mover has proposed for his reason something that's factually incorrect. I would ask that the chair rule it out of order. Failing that, I would ask that the members of this committee vote against it, because it's factually not accurate.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dave MacKenzie]

Mr. Seeback is next.

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Brampton West, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I actually wanted some clarification. Maybe it should have been a point of order, but my understanding is an extension will just allow us to continue to finish through the amendments that are in existence. The other ones that have unfortunately disappeared or have been voted down consequentially do not come back.

What we're left with is the remaining pieces of the bill and a couple of amendments. Is that correct?

[The Chair, Conservative, Dave MacKenzie]

I think your assessment is correct. We continue on from the point we're at.

Go ahead, Madame Boivin.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Thank you.

I was the first in line, but it's okay, I'll go third.

I simply wanted to tell my colleagues that the approach to Bill C-273 and Bill C-394 was identical to the motion moved by Mr. Garrison. The motion was agreed to, challenged and then agreed to again. Mr. Anderson, who isn't allowed to vote, has shown up here out of the blue and raised some sort of procedural sticking point on the basis that the request has not been justified, when the motion has been agreed to and challenged before.

Since I prefer to have the chair listen to me when I speak, I will wait. I still have the floor. When you spend years at the appeal court, you fall into that kind of habit. When judges start speaking amongst themselves, you say

there's no fucking—

Sorry.

I withdraw that. He wasn't listening, in any case.

I was saying how nice you are.

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

[The Chair, Conservative, Dave MacKenzie]

I'm still nice.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

You are always nice.

Just to make sure that everybody understands me, I will repeat it in English.

The motion was presented. It was the same motion we adopted without any additions as a committee, and we worked in this committee in a very, I'd say, collaborative way up until this point. We agreed because we thought we didn't want them sent back after all the work we had not yet done, just as is, to the House. It's the same principle.

Maybe everybody has to breathe in a bit. We might finish if we stop all of this. Maybe the light will come and hit people or whatever, but let's move on.

To ask for a reason when there was not even one asked when.... I would like to know why it is so different on Bill C-279, when we even voted yesterday unanimously in the House of Commons on Bill C-273 and we agreed to have the 30 days.

At some point in time, let's move.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dave MacKenzie]

If I could just answer that one comment, the clerk has provided me with a copy. There was one additional paragraph:

Your Committee's request for an extension is to allow its members to hold its deliberations beyond the present deadline of Monday, December 10, 2012 in order to give Bill C-273 the consideration it requires. Therefore, your Committee requests an extension of thirty days.

It was to give it the—

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Exactly, on the clause-by-clause study.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dave MacKenzie]

—consideration it requires.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Are you talking about Bill C-273 or Bill C-279?

[The Chair, Conservative, Dave MacKenzie]

It was Bill C-279. Bill C-273 and Bill C-279—

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

That's what I just said.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dave MacKenzie]

—were the same, but it was to provide time for deliberations.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

So here it is to provide time to do the clause-by-clause study. What is wrong with that? Geez.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dave MacKenzie]

Well, to give it the consideration it requires.

I'm sorry....

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Exactly. This one is for the clause-by-clause study. The other one is to have due consideration with witnesses and so on. It's as grand.... Anyway.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dave MacKenzie]

We are still dealing with the amendment.

I have Mr. Jean.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

I was just going to ask if there is any chance the parties could take a five-minute break to have a specific discussion and maybe resolve this situation and expedite this matter?

[The Chair, Conservative, Dave MacKenzie]

Françoise?