Evidence of meeting #119 for Justice and Human Rights in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was chair.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Conservative
Jamil Jivani Conservative Durham, ON
I'm curious if the clerk can confirm if this motion is amendable. Could you just explain whether that's an option here?
The Clerk
The motions generally are amendable, and then we would get into the admissibility of the amendment, depending on what's in it. That's all I can say now.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Lena Metlege Diab
Mr. Clerk, can I ask a question? Mr. Brock is saying that he provided you with a list of maybe eight witnesses.
Liberal
October 31st, 2024 / 11:50 a.m.
Conservative
Larry Brock Conservative Brantford—Brant, ON
No, I'm sorry, I did not say that. I said I have access to a list that was generated by the sponsor of the bill, but I never received the impression from you, Madam Chair, or from the clerk, as to your willingness to receive that list. The information that I was receiving was, “That's fine, but the sponsor of the bill has to appear as our first witness.” I'm just indicating—and I think precedent is clearly established—that it is not a direction of Parliament. It is not a rule, per se, that a sponsor must always testify first.
When you have witnesses on a study as important as child exploitation material is to this country, and on the proliferation of this disgusting material not only in this country but worldwide, it's incumbent upon us as a nation and as parliamentarians to give it appropriate time to be studied.
I want to raise that, because—
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Lena Metlege Diab
As the chair, let me just.... I can't help it. We're lawyers here, right?
On the sponsor appearing first, page 764 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, reads:
Ordinarily the first witness to appear before the committee is either the sponsor of the bill, the Minister responsible for it or the Minister's Parliamentary Secretary.
Quite clearly, we cannot compel.... I have no intention of compelling anybody in this place to do what they don't want to do, but that is the norm. On your list of witnesses, as long as I've been here, even when I was a member on other committees or even this one, I never went to the chair to give them their witnesses. Everything always flows through the clerk. In fact, the chair doesn't see them until everybody else sees them.
That is just to clarify, because you wouldn't want to say anything about me that I'm not going to clarify.
Conservative
Larry Brock Conservative Brantford—Brant, ON
As a lawyer, I thank you for bringing that to my attention—
Conservative
Larry Brock Conservative Brantford—Brant, ON
—but, also as a lawyer, I'm very cognizant of how words are statutorily interpreted.
In this case, “ordinarily” is not mandatory. I think we can all agree with that conclusion. “Ordinary” is in the sense that it's customary, but it is not etched in stone that on each and every occasion a private member's bill must commence by way of committee study with the sponsor.
To give but one example, there are precedents where private member's bill sponsors didn't appear at committee. There was a Bloc private member's bill recently, where the sponsor, the Bloc member, did not appear, but witnesses in place of that sponsor did.
Over the last couple of weeks, a study of Bill C-65 and the Canada Elections Act was discussed at PROC, and no minister appeared, only officials. I guess that little example highlights why “ordinarily” is used as opposed to “mandatory” and “must”.
I wanted to emphasize that, Madam Chair, because I think we all agree on the importance of Bill C-270, the content and what it means to this nation, as a G7 nation taking a stand against child pornography and its proliferation and access.
Then, when I read the tweets, as I often do in my spare time—whatever spare time I do have—one such tweet caught my eye, and that was from Liberal member James Maloney. Quite clearly, it started off appropriately about the importance of the study of this bill, but then it denigrated into partisanship, and it even suggested, as my colleague Ms. Ferrari pointed out, that the leader was somehow gagging Mr. Viersen from attending.
Then he circled back to the age-old issue, the divisive issue, the wedge issue. “In case of emergency, break glass.” Clearly, we have a raging fire at the Liberal Party of Canada right now in terms of its standing in Canada and the position of its leader, who is not loved at all by the public. In fact, almost 70% of Canadians polled from coast to coast to coast want him gone and are prepared to pack his suitcase to see him out of politics entirely.
When you have a situation in which you're down 20-plus points in the polls and you have been so for the better part of a year and a half, and no matter what sort of policy you're introducing as a government, no matter what sort of fall economic statement you produce, no matter what spring budget you produce, which ordinarily is a great bump up for any government in terms of its economic outlook for the nation.... Generally, historically, you always saw a bump in support with the release of those economic statements telegraphing to Canadians that there is hope on the horizon, but when you're dealing with the Liberal government under Justin Trudeau, and you've experienced literally for the last nine years a living hell from coast to coast to coast, there has been no bump.
What have we seen in the House of Commons for the last two or three weeks? We've had the foreign interference issue that has raised its head, with, somehow, every member from the Prime Minister to the ministers to the back bench all claiming, “What is the leader of the Conservative Party hiding? He doesn't want to get his clearance.”
Do you know what? Canadians aren't interested in that. Canadians are interested in feeding their families. Canadians are interested in paying their bills. Canadians are interested in actually being able to afford a mortgage, pay the rent and put gas in their vehicle, which are being crippled by the inflationary factors that this government has created and have made life miserable.
Over two million people lined up at our food banks across the nation. I've toured my food bank numerous times. People who proudly gave and donated over the years now find themselves, because of the disastrous fiscal policies of Justin Trudeau, actually the recipients of food banks. That's not unique to my riding of Brantford—Brant. It's probably happening to every member of the Liberal bench, as well as every member in Parliament. It is a fact of life under Justin Trudeau.
It's no small wonder that they want to change the page, distract, divide and talk about anything but the miserable hell that this government is putting Canadians through. We had foreign interference. Now we have the right to choose.
When I see Mr. Maloney, whom I have known for some time and have great respect for, use that tried, old, tired approach to somehow distract Canadians.... It's not working.
Unfortunately, we see this happening now in committee. They don't want Arnold Viersen to proudly talk about why he sponsored this bill and why he's so passionate about victims' rights and child pornography. No. they want to get on their soapbox and talk about a woman's right to choose—every one of those members.
I find it appalling. I find it disgusting and hypocritical when they say, “Oh no, we care about victims' rights—
Liberal
Julie Dabrusin Liberal Toronto—Danforth, ON
On a point of order, Madam Chair, I just need clarification, because the motion is to extend time to study a Conservative-led bill by Mr. Viersen, and in fact we're actually trying to give him time to appear.
I'm just under...a misunderstanding, but maybe it's been clarified.
Is Mr. Brock saying that Mr. Viersen does not want to appear because he doesn't want to talk about abortion, and that's the reason we're actually avoiding this appearance?
Conservative
Conservative
Larry Brock Conservative Brantford—Brant, ON
Well, you can ask all your questions when I'm done, and I'm not done, so thanks for the interruption.
Look for an opportunity to pretend to Canadians that they give a damn about victims and are moving the needle when it comes to victim rights and ensuring the safety of victims generally. In particular, in this case, it's children, the most vulnerable members of our society, who often fall prey to individuals who would harm them in the most vile and disgusting ways. That should be the focus. That should have been the substance of Mr. Maloney's tweet, but, no, Mr. Maloney's true inner voice came out.
Because I have such respect for Mr. Maloney, I don't think that was an original thought, and I'm going to give him the benefit of the doubt, because I have no doubt in my mind that Justin Trudeau and his cabal at the PMO directed Mr. Maloney as the lead at justice. My friend Mr. Mendicino is smiling. I have no doubt that the cabal at the PMO directed and telegraphed the content of that tweet to somehow weave in that little wedge issue that comes back time after time.
This is notwithstanding the fact that the leader of the Conservative Party of Canada yesterday in question period talked about the Conservative position as being the same Conservative position that has been on the table for the last two decades. It goes in one ear and out the other with respect to this Liberal government, because, “In case of emergency, break glass.”
I too want to get to the point where we're studying this, but I'm also deeply, deeply disappointed in Ms. Dabrusin, Mr. Mendicino and Mr. Housefather, all three of whom, again, I have a great deal of respect for. These individuals, Madam Chair, were hand-picked by Justin Trudeau and the PMO to sit on this anti-Semitism study.
Conservative
Larry Brock Conservative Brantford—Brant, ON
Well, perhaps they did. I know that Mr. Mendicino is a permanent member. Mr. Housefather was a permanent member, but is not now, and Ms. Dabrusin is not, but they are proud supporters of Israel, and I commend and I applaud all of their advocacy. As my colleague Ms. Ferrari has very aptly pointed out on the record, Mr. Housefather in particular has been a very lonely, brave soldier.
Mr. Mendicino, I have a great deal of respect for you, and I know you've taken a lead. I know your background is not Israeli, but you obviously care about human rights, and you care about the nation.
Israel, the nation of Israel, is a proud ally of Canada and continues to be a proud ally of Canada, and I applaud you for your efforts, sir, but I find it so disappointing to see that all three of you, who didn't want to go back to the anti-Semitism study, voted in favour of Mr. Maloney to distract from the agenda that we had in our notice of meeting to get to the point of hopefully finalizing the final version, known as version number four, which our great analysts spent incredible time, very productive time, putting together. It was deeply disappointing to me and I'm sure to Canadians who are watching this to see three proud Liberal members, who have supported Israel through this entire conflict, vote to not get back to a study that is so important to this nation.
On behalf of the Canadians who are disappointed, I wish to raise that.
We all know how difficult it has been for the three of you in your caucus. You're telegraphed and been dispatched to go to certain parts of the country, voicing your support for Israel, while Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, your leader, sends out another team to talk about—
Liberal
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Lena Metlege Diab
Yes, Ms. Dabrusin. I think it's fair if you have a point of order, because, to be quite frank, he's raised your name a number of times, and—
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Lena Metlege Diab
It's difficult for the chair to intervene, but I find that an intervention is probably necessary here.
Liberal
Julie Dabrusin Liberal Toronto—Danforth, ON
Also, I believe the convention is that all comments are supposed to be through the chair. I'm not sure, Madam Chair, whether you're feeling all the feelings that are being spoken to.
I personally love that Mr. Brock feels he's waxing poetic about how wonderful I am. That's great. However, I believe we have something we should be studying right now. I think studying how the diaspora here in Canada is dealing with rising anti-Semitism is extremely important.
With that in mind, can we move to the vote or extend the time so we can hear from the Conservative member, Mr. Viersen, on his private member's bill, and then continue on?
Conservative