Evidence of meeting #121 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 consent.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Lena Metlege Diab
Okay. I hear “no” on my left side.
For the record, the clerk has already requested three times in three different letters that Mr. Viersen come. Two of them were for him to come today, but we're still here.
Mr. Bittle, please continue.
Liberal
Chris Bittle Liberal St. Catharines, ON
Thank you, Madam Chair.
It's funny. Mr. Brock got quite upset when I suggested he didn't trust Mr. Viersen, and he was the quickest to jump up to say no to expediting this study and having Mr. Viersen come this afternoon. So much for standing up for victims. So much for standing up for this legislation, which, again, didn't do any of the things Mr. Kurek talked about in his two hours.
Where's that urgency? Look at the empty end of the table. If he's proud of this legislation, he should come to testify.
I think he is proud of the legislation. I take him at his word. I don't think his colleagues are proud of him. I think his colleagues—Mr. Brock, especially—are embarrassed by him. They don't want him to come. They don't want him to appear. They're scared of what he'll have to say. It's truly shameful. If you trust your colleagues, why not have them come to testify? It's embarrassing, and it's shameful. It speaks volumes about what you think of your colleague Mr. Viersen.
This legislation deserves to be debated, and it deserves to be debated quickly. Mr. Brock does not want it debated today. The Conservatives just want it to go without study, which is worrisome. If this is as powerful as Mr. Kurek says it is, this should be a quick study, and then we can go on to the next thing. He is correct that it passed unanimously in the House.
I don't know if Mr. Brock is under orders from the leader's office. Maybe he trusts Mr. Viersen and his leader's office doesn't trust Mr. Viersen, but we're spending hours preventing him from testifying. Mr. Brock just denied unanimous consent to have him come to testify. It's truly shameful and hypocritical of a party that pretends to stand up for victims, but when the time comes to actually stand up for them, they are absent.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Conservative
Conservative
Adam Chambers Conservative Simcoe North, ON
There are no more empty sides at the table. I just want to make sure that's clear, for my colleague Mr. Bittle.
Liberal
Bloc
Rhéal Fortin Bloc Rivière-du-Nord, QC
I don't want to interrupt my friend Mr. Van Popta, but, before he begins his speech, would it be possible to reread the motion we are currently working on? I know it's short.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Lena Metlege Diab
Yes, absolutely.
The motion is: “That the committee request an extension of 30 sitting days to the period of Committee consideration for Bill C‑270.”
Bloc
Rhéal Fortin Bloc Rivière-du-Nord, QC
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Under the circumstances, if possible, I would ask for a vote on this motion.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Lena Metlege Diab
There are still a few names on the list of members who wish to speak, namely Mr. Van Popta and Mr. Brock. We can't call for a vote on the motion if any members still wish to discuss it.
Bloc
Rhéal Fortin Bloc Rivière-du-Nord, QC
I would then ask you to add my name to the list after Mr. Brock's, and I will call for the vote on the motion at that time.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Liberal
Conservative
Tako Van Popta Conservative Langley—Aldergrove, BC
Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you for rereading the motion. I was getting somewhat confused because Mr. Bittle kept referring to Mr. Viersen. I don't think that name even appears in the motion that is before us today, which is to extend for 30 days.
I expressed before my frustration with our not proceeding with this study. We had some time. We should have called witnesses. I understand that the list of witnesses was provided to the chair some time ago. I had hoped that witnesses on this study would have appeared earlier this week, and I had hoped again that they would appear today. The Liberals are clearly playing games. For some reason or another, they don't want to hear what these witnesses have to say. They only want to hear what Mr. Viersen has to say, and I find that very frustrating.
I ask myself why we even need a 30-day extension to a 60-day rule. I think it would be useful to read what Bosc and Gagnon say about the 60 days so that we have it clearer and in front of us:
With regard to private Members' bills, the Standing Orders provide that the committees to which they are referred have 60 sitting days from the date of the order of reference to: conclude their consideration of the bill and report the bill to the House, with or without amendments; present a report recommending not to proceed further with the bill; or present a report requesting a 30-sitting-day extension....
I believe that's the rule we're up against. I did the math. The bill was referred to us from the House after a second reading vote on May 8. That's almost six months ago. Surely we could have had the time to have the study done since then.
I looked through the schedule of events as to what this committee has been doing all this time to see why it could not have come to us before and why it is now a crisis such that we need to get a 30-day extension. At the time, on May 8, there were two important studies in front of this committee. One was on anti-Semitism, and one was on Islamophobia. We agreed that these were two important studies, and the Conservative members of this committee were very interested in studying these two reports. This is what happened. On May 9, the committee studied anti-Semitism. We had witnesses come before us. On May 23, anti-Semitism was studied again, and we had witnesses come before us. There was a repeat of that on Monday, May 27; we had anti-Semitism witnesses.
I recall those meetings very well. They were interesting. It was good to hear different perspectives. I was very encouraged by the bravery with which these witnesses appeared and explained to us what was going on, particularly on campuses. I thought those three meetings were very educational; they certainly were for me.
On June 3, we switched over to the Islamophobia study. Again, we had witnesses appear before us on that day.
Liberal
Chris Bittle Liberal St. Catharines, ON
On a point of order, this is completely irrelevant to the matter in question. Again, Mr. Van Popta is talking about six months for Mr. Viersen to appear. Maybe he can discuss why he's not appearing within those six months. That would be more reasonable and more in line with what we're discussing.
Conservative
Larry Brock Conservative Brantford—Brant, ON
On the same point of order, Madam Chair, it is absolutely, 100% relevant to the only motion before this committee, which has absolutely nothing to do with my colleague Arnold Viersen and everything to do with extending this study by 30 days. It's relevant that Mr. Van Popta is going through the history of how we found ourselves in the position to study this particular bill, which has been with the committee now for close to six months.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Lena Metlege Diab
By the way, the clerk also has the record of the appearances we've had. I know it sounds like it's been six months, but obviously we broke in June and did not return until the third week of September.
Mr. Van Popta, please continue.
Conservative
Tako Van Popta Conservative Langley—Aldergrove, BC
I'm very happy that the clerk also has it in front of him, and I'm sure that he will point out if and when I am wrong, but I think I'm pretty accurate about what's going on.
I was saying that we started the Islamophobia study on June 3, keeping in mind that the private member's bill, Bill C-270, had been with us for almost a month by then already. I'm just setting the framework to come to an understanding as to why, after six months, it is now becoming a crisis that we need to deal with this private member's bill.
On June 3, we had witnesses appear before us on the Islamophobia study. Later that week, on Thursday, June 6, again we had witnesses appear before us on the Islamophobia study, and then again the following week, on Monday, June 10, we had witnesses come here on the Islamophobia study. I remember those meetings well, and I was impressed with the testimony and the courage with which the witnesses came to us to give testimony and the heartfelt stories that we were receiving. I knew there were going to be good reports coming out of these two studies.
June 13, I believe, was the last day that we had witnesses come to us on the anti-Semitism study, so we were sort of going back and forth. I believe on June 13 we also gave instructions. I don't know if we had witnesses, but we took time to give instructions to the analysts as to what we thought was important to put into the report on anti-Semitism. Then, on June 17, the next week, it was the same thing with the Islamophobia study. We had all gone through the witness testimony, or at least I did, over the weekend. I read the testimony and highlighted what I thought was important to be put into the report. I remember at the time that we told the analysts, “You are very good at what you do, as highly educated people and great drafters. Please go ahead and go through all the testimony and put the report together as best you can, including the recommendations.”
I've been on committees where the members of the committee actually spent time writing the recommendations themselves and then submitted them to the analysts. I have seen the analysts have a hard time, on the one hand, paying respect to the drafter of the recommendations and, on the other hand, trying to make the report coherent as though it was written by one person, so I was very happy that the other committee members agreed that we would just give free rein to our analysts to work on the two reports, including writing the recommendations, over the summer and present them to us in September. Indeed, that is what happened.
Of course, those meetings are in camera when we're reviewing the reports, so there's only so much I can say about what happened at those meetings. I would just say this: As I expected, the reports came back very well written and very thorough. I remember going through them sitting in the airplane on the way here with my highlighter and my pen. I thought, “I might have said this one slightly differently, or I might have done it that way, or I might have put the paragraphs in a slightly different order,” but in the end, you know, we had delegated this task to our analysts. They did a good job, and I wanted to respect them.
Madam Chair, at that time, I could have accepted at least the narrative part of each of those reports as they were written and then, with my committee colleagues, gone into the recommendations to see if I thought there was probably going to be room there for some disagreement, for some debate and for some refining. In my opinion, that would have been one two-hour meeting on each report, but that's not what happened.
On September 23, we had set aside an in camera meeting for the Islamophobia study. Later that week, on Thursday, September 26, we had a two-hour meeting in camera to review the first draft of the anti-Semitism report. On Thursday, October 10, we had a second two-hour in camera meeting to review another draft of the Islamophobia report.
On Monday, October 21, we had a third meeting, a two-hour in camera meeting, debating the drafting of the report. On Thursday, October 24, we had—let me count here—
Conservative
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Lena Metlege Diab
Mr. Van Popta, wait one moment.
We'll go to Mr. Bittle, please, on a point of order.
Liberal
Chris Bittle Liberal St. Catharines, ON
Again, this is not relevant. Reading the agenda or the minutes of the committee is not relevant to the study of why Mr. Viersen refuses to come, and why, over the six months, he has refused to attend.
Conservative
Damien Kurek Conservative Battle River—Crowfoot, AB
Thank you. I'm very glad to be back to this.
On that point of order, Madam Chair, while I'm sure you appreciate the feedback that Mr. Bittle is providing to you about relevance, it is not up to him or the government to determine what is associated with relevance to this committee.
I would, however, note that the motion before us, put forward by Mr. Maloney, is directly related to extending the study. I would suggest that Mr. Van Popta's intervention is not only relevant but actually prescient, with precision, to the specifics of the motion that is being discussed.