Evidence of meeting #25 for National Defence in the 43rd Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was recommendations.
A video is available from Parliament.
2:30 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Karen McCrimmon
I'm sorry. The screen used to go left to right, but now it kind of goes right to left, and sometimes they don't all show up in the correct order.
Madam Larouche, you are up first.
2:30 p.m.
Bloc
Andréanne Larouche Bloc Shefford, QC
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I'd like to propose an amendment to the motion under debate. To respect the decision made earlier this week, I'd simply like to add, at the very end, “and that the date of the report be not changed.” Otherwise, we should find a way to remind people that dates have been confirmed.
2:30 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Karen McCrimmon
Thank you very much.
Next we have Madam Vandenbeld, and then Madam Alleslev.
2:30 p.m.
Liberal
Anita Vandenbeld Liberal Ottawa West—Nepean, ON
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I would like to put a subamendment to that amendment to say that we change the word “summon” to the word “invite”. It's just a one-word change.
2:30 p.m.
Conservative
James Bezan Conservative Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB
On a point of order, you can only deal with one amendment at a time, Madam Chair.
2:30 p.m.
Conservative
Cheryl Gallant Conservative Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON
I have a point of order. I did not hear the amendment say anything about the word “summon”.
2:30 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Karen McCrimmon
We need to have debate on the amendment that was brought to the floor by Madame Larouche. Who wants to speak to that?
Go ahead, Madam Alleslev.
2:30 p.m.
Conservative
Leona Alleslev Conservative Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON
I absolutely support the amendment.
There was no intent to delay the study. However, of the witnesses that we had agreed as a committee that we needed to hear from, Elder Marques was absolutely one of them. We did invite him and he has yet to appear, so we need to summons him. Certainly we want to maintain the timetable for this report, but we also want to ensure at the same time that it is thorough in its investigation.
Thank you.
2:30 p.m.
NDP
Randall Garrison NDP Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC
Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
I too support the amendment put forward by Madame Larouche.
I don't think the intent of the original motion was to change any deadlines. It didn't talk about changing any deadlines. I remain disappointed that we have to submit, very shortly, our recommendation without hearing from key witnesses, but the time frame suggested, both in the motion adopted previously and in Mr. Bezan's motion, would allow us to take into consideration that testimony when we're drafting our report.
I am in support of both the amendment and the main motion.
2:30 p.m.
Liberal
April 16th, 2021 / 2:30 p.m.
Liberal
Yvan Baker Liberal Etobicoke Centre, ON
I have a couple of comments I want to make in response to what was said.
I think a comment was made by one of the members around the need to summon Mr. Marques. I don't agree with that. I think summoning is a drastic measure and is unnecessary.
Unfortunately, we're debating this issue again. We've been through this on this committee, on this study, before. I do think that summoning is a very drastic measure. It sets a dangerous precedent. It's unfair to the person who is being summoned, unless they've absolutely refused to appear.
I'm wondering if—
2:30 p.m.
Conservative
James Bezan Conservative Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB
On a point of order, Mr. Chair, I believe we're debating the amendment, which has nothing to do with the summons part. We're just talking about Madam Larouche's addition to respect timelines.
2:35 p.m.
Liberal
Yvan Baker Liberal Etobicoke Centre, ON
Mr. Bezan's colleague raised this issue about the need to summon, and I'm now not being allowed to respond, in Mr. Bezan's opinion.
2:35 p.m.
Conservative
2:35 p.m.
Bloc
Andréanne Larouche Bloc Shefford, QC
Madam Chair, I have a point of order.
We have not voted on my amendment and we have not even finished debating it.
2:35 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Karen McCrimmon
Madame Larouche, you have not been recognized.
Stand by, everybody. We can't have everyone talking over each other.
2:35 p.m.
Bloc
Andréanne Larouche Bloc Shefford, QC
Madam Chair, I would really like to raise a point of order after Mr. Baker's comment. We are currently debating my amendment, not the main motion. I feel that is what the debate must be about, and when the debate is over, we have to vote on the amendment.
2:35 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Karen McCrimmon
Copy that. That actually makes a lot of sense.
The debate is on the amendment put forward by Madame Larouche. Does anybody else want to speak to that amendment?
(Amendment agreed to)
Go ahead, Madam Vandenbeld.
2:35 p.m.
Liberal
Anita Vandenbeld Liberal Ottawa West—Nepean, ON
Madam Chair, I would like to move another amendment. I move to change the word “summon” to “invite”.
I would actually ask the clerk to please tell us whether Mr. Marques has in fact ever refused to come. Could the clerk explain the correspondence a little? I really believe that a summons is something that should happen only if somebody has actually refused to come and/or has refused to respond to the clerk's invitation. Could the clerk please give us a little background about the discussions with Mr. Marquez?
My amendment would be just to change that word.
2:35 p.m.
Conservative
Cheryl Gallant Conservative Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON
[Inaudible—Editor] speaking order and I had my hand up.
2:35 p.m.
The Clerk
Madam Chair, just to clarify, on both occasions Mr. Marques has not declined. He just said that he was not available on those days.