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
All right.
Thank you, everyone.
What I'm going to do now is suspend the meeting.
We are suspended.
[The meeting was suspended at 2:46 p.m., Thursday, November 7]
[The meeting resumed at 12:30 p.m., Friday, November 8]
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Lena Metlege Diab
We are back in session.
For the first time on this committee, French speakers outnumber English speakers. That's great.
Welcome. This is meeting number 121 of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. The committee is beginning consideration of Bill C‑270, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (pornographic material).
We are here in public to resume the debate that started on the motion of James Maloney, which was a request for an extension of 30 sitting days to report Bill C-270 to the House.
When we left off, we were with MP Van Popta. I wasn't sure if he had concluded or not.
Conservative
Conservative
Philip Lawrence Conservative Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON
I just have a point of order. I don't mean to interrupt you, Mr. Van Popta. I know you've been waiting.
Which Liberals are officially subbed in? I notice there's an excess. I do love all my Liberal colleagues, but I did see an excess of Liberals here, so I just want to know which ones are officially here.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Lena Metlege Diab
Thank you.
We have Mr. Drouin.
I wish you a good afternoon and thank you for attending.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Lena Metlege Diab
Mr. Samson is supernumerary at the moment.
For the benefit of the few who have never been on the justice committee, or not for a long time, I would request that all interventions be made through the chair and that you do not speak unless you are recognized by the chair.
The floor is yours, MP Van Popta.
Conservative
Tako Van Popta Conservative Langley—Aldergrove, BC
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Before I pick up where I left off, I would like clarification on how long we will be here. That will inform how I'm going to carry forward for the next little while.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Lena Metlege Diab
We have resources until 11:30 tonight.
What happens will depend on the committee. I'm at the discretion of the committee.
Conservative
Tako Van Popta Conservative Langley—Aldergrove, BC
If my math is correct, that's another 11 hours. That was a gift to this committee, really. We weren't expecting it.
The Liberals are asking for an extension of 30 days, which would have been eight meetings times two hours, or 16 hours. Well, we have 11 hours tonight. If it's so urgent to go ahead with the study, why aren't we using this time more productively by having witnesses? We submitted names of witnesses quite a while ago. For some reason or another, those witnesses have never been asked to come here. Now the Liberals are asking for an extension of time to listen to witnesses. Why don't we do it right now? I just find it very frustrating.
Where I left off....
Madam Chair, I wonder if you could read again the motion that is actually being debated, to help us focus.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Lena Metlege Diab
Certainly.
The notice of motion was dated October 7, 2024. It was a month ago. The motion we are on reads as follows:
That the committee request an extension of 30 sitting days to the period of committee consideration for Bill C-270.
November 8th, 2024 / 12:35 p.m.
Conservative
Tako Van Popta Conservative Langley—Aldergrove, BC
Okay. Good. Thank you.
It was just a simple motion to extend for 30 days. That motion was made 30 days ago. How many meetings have we had since then where we could have had witnesses? Now we have another 11 hours and still no witnesses here. I think the Liberals are just playing games. I don't know what their endgame is here or what their objective is, but we're just wasting a lot of time. It's an unproductive use of this committee's efforts.
To pick up where I left off, in response to that motion for an extension of 30 days, I was going through the schedule of events of this committee for the last six months. I was trying to understand how we got to this point where we are now in a crisis where we need an extension of 30 days to deal with our business. Why didn't we deal with it before?
For the benefit of those who are new to this committee today, the private member's bill that is the subject of the debate, once we get going on it and once we get witnesses here, will be Bill C-270, which was referred to this committee on May 8. That was six months ago. Why do we need another 30 days? What are we going to do in those 30 days that we couldn't have done in the six months that have passed in the meantime?
I won't belabour the point, but I'll be giving a little bit of background to those who weren't part of the discussion yesterday. I'm doing it for the benefit of those who are gracing us with their presence today. I really appreciate all of them coming, from all sides of the House.
On May 8, we were engaged in two very important studies. One was on anti-Semitism; the other was on Islamophobia. The anti-Semitism study was on a proposal from the Liberals. On the Conservative side of this table, we agreed to that. We thought it was very important, given what was happening, particularly on university campuses.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Lena Metlege Diab
Mr. Van Popta, please wait one moment.
Colleagues, please, can we not have a lot of distraction, for your colleague's sake? Thank you very much.
MP Van Popta, you have the floor.
Liberal
Chris Bittle Liberal St. Catharines, ON
Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
The rules don't provide for repetition. If Mr. Van Popta is just going to reread what he read last time.... This is a continuation of a meeting, not a new meeting. He needs to move on to new material. I know he said that he didn't want to belabour the point, but it looks like he is belabouring. If he is going to repeat, it's not in accordance with the rules. He needs to move on to something relevant and new and carry on, or we need to go down to the next person on the list.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Lena Metlege Diab
Thank you, Mr. Bittle.
I think Mr. Van Popta is aware of the rules. He's been very collegial to work with. I think he understands that.
Conservative
Tako Van Popta Conservative Langley—Aldergrove, BC
Of course. Thank you.
I am not going to belabour the point. I am just saying that we were undertaking two very important studies at the time, so we could not get into the study on Bill C-270 immediately. I get that. I appreciate that. I understand that.
The first six meetings on these two studies went very well, when we listened to witnesses. That brought us to the end of the sitting before the summer break. We had an opportunity to have a meeting with the analysts to give drafting instructions. We told them to go ahead, prepare both reports and have them available to us when the session began again in September. They indeed did that and gave us very well-written reports.
But then it became frustrating, Madam Chair. I know that all of these meetings were in camera—reading through the reports, analyzing them, drafting them—so I will not give any particulars at at all about what happened there. Suffice it to say that there were five meetings on each one, and this was after our very professional analysts drafted excellent reports. Why did it take that long? I've been thinking about that a lot. This committee is mostly made up of lawyers, although not all of us are. Some of us had the advantage of never having gone to law school, but most of us are lawyers, and I suppose we like the sound of our own voice and testing out our ability to argue our points of view. Those meetings dragged on and on and on.
I think there was a second reason those meetings went so long. On the Liberal side of this table, it was a different bench depending on which topic we were discussing. When we were discussing the anti-Semitism report, we had one group of Liberals. When we were discussing the Islamophobia report, there was a different bench of Liberals. We were more or less alternating back and forth, first anti-Semitism and then Islamophobia. It became abundantly clear to us on this side of the table—
Liberal
Chris Bittle Liberal St. Catharines, ON
I don't know the relevance of questioning the legitimacy of members, especially Jewish and Muslim members, to appear at a committee on topics of Islamophobia and anti-Semitism. It's truly disgusting. It's not relevant and it's disgusting to suggest that their presence delayed the study of this bill.
I'm hoping Mr. Van Popta can get to something relevant. I know he doesn't want Mr. Viersen to testify. Perhaps, as a compromise, we can meet this coming week after Remembrance Day, with Mr. Viersen starting the study. We could probably finish it next week. We could even call him this afternoon. I'm sure he'd be happy to Zoom in, and we'd be happy to hear from him. He's the first sponsor of a bill I've ever heard who didn't want to appear on his bill.
It's truly disgusting what Mr. Van Popta is getting into—
Liberal
Chris Bittle Liberal St. Catharines, ON
—in terms of questioning whether members can appear and whether bringing their own perspectives as Muslim and Jewish members of caucus to the study is delaying this bill. It's truly disappointing, and Mr. Van Popta is better than that.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Lena Metlege Diab
Thank you, Mr. Bittle.
I'm sure Mr. Van Popta.... I guess I shouldn't be putting words in his mouth. The fact that we did the two studies.... All members of the committee were in consensus about doing the two studies and meeting on the dates that we met on. We heard from witnesses in three meetings for each study, as you already alluded to at the last meeting. The clerk has all the time frames for each of the two panels of witnesses. Then there were the subsequent in camera meetings when we came back in the fall.
The point is well taken, Mr. Bittle. No member should have any issues with that. It was agreed to by everybody on the committee that this would be done.
If it helps the committee, in terms of witnesses, there were no witness names received until November 1. That was the first time that any witness names were sent to the clerk. At that point in time, the clerk contacted me as the chair and alerted me that there was just no way to send anything to them this week because there was just no time to do that. Furthermore, he also alerted me and was sort of questioning...which is also why we are here. It's never been, in his 20-plus years of experience, that the witness of a PMB does not appear first. He was actually waiting for that appearance to be made first as well.
That's just to be clear on the facts. I don't think anybody has any issue with the facts, because the facts are the facts and the dates are the dates.
Mr. Van Popta, I will go back to you for your remarks.
