Evidence of meeting #103 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 monday.
A recording is available from Parliament.
9:20 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Lena Metlege Diab
Thank you, Mr. Fortin.
Is there unanimous consent among the committee colleagues on this proposal?
9:20 a.m.
Some hon. members
No.
9:20 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Lena Metlege Diab
We don't have unanimous consent.
Then I will continue.
Shall clause 1 carry?
Mr. Moore.
9:20 a.m.
Conservative
Rob Moore Conservative Fundy Royal, NB
I agree 100% with Mr. Fortin on the need to hear from the minister. There's recognition by the Supreme Court that simply eliminating section 43 puts teachers and parents at risk. There's an acknowledgement from the Minister of Justice, apparently. We've heard through Mr. Maloney and the parliamentary secretary that he, too, recognizes there is risk in eliminating section 43. He has, we understand, suggested he would be bringing in legislation. For us to properly proceed on this private member's bill requires us to know what that legislation looks like. It also requires us to know the timing around the coming into force of this legislation and the other legislation, should they both pass.
I want to make one thing 100% clear: This bill is extremely problematic. There has been much concern raised by committee members and especially by witnesses and the Supreme Court. We had a big surprise dropped on us on Monday when we heard that the Minister of Justice acknowledges that this is a problematic bill and will be bringing in, presumably, government legislation. I agree that we should, as we scheduled, quickly move to our study on anti-Semitism on Monday. This bill is not ready. The committee has not heard from the minister. The committee has not heard from departmental officials on the content of the new justice legislation that may be coming to respond to the fallout from this bill.
I want to make it extremely clear that we should be moving on, on Monday, regardless of what happens with Bill C-273, which is a flawed bill that's out of touch with teachers and parents in this country. Regardless of what happens with it, we need to move on with our agenda. Our agenda should be that, on Monday, we begin Mr. Housefather's study on anti-Semitism. Look at your phone, look at the headlines and turn on the television. You will see that this is a massive issue across the country right now. That's why we have agreed as a committee, unanimously, to study Mr. Housefather's motion. I believe we should be studying Mr. Housefather's motion on Monday.
I think we should all be in agreement on that.
Madam Chair, I am moving a motion at this time that we begin our study on Mr. Housefather's motion on anti-Semitism on Monday and Thursday of next week.
Thank you.
9:25 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Lena Metlege Diab
Mr. Moore, I think we have to complete what we're completing first, before I can entertain a motion on another topic, so just allow me to—
9:25 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Lena Metlege Diab
I think so, but let me hear from Mr. Maloney. He also has his hand up.
May 2nd, 2024 / 9:25 a.m.
Liberal
James Maloney Liberal Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I was going to make that very point. We are doing clause-by-clause. This motion that Mr. Moore is proposing is out of order.
There's a very simple path forward to get on with this study, which we all agree is top priority—very important—and which is why Mr. Housefather brought it forward in the first place. The only thing between us and that study is ongoing Conservative obstruction and filibustering this piece of legislation.
We can vote on this bill now. We're on clause-by-clause. We are two votes away from getting to that study.
I also want to clarify for the record. A number of times Mr. Moore and others...at no time did I say on Monday, when I made reference to the minister's intention, that the passage of this bill created a void or created a situation that was problematic. What I said was that the minister was committed to working towards a goal of achieving something in the spirit of what the “teachers” had proposed. I want to set the record clear on that.
A number of comments were made today by members of this committee. To suggest that any member of Parliament, any member of this committee, does not support parental rights is outrageous.
I ask that we rule Mr. Moore's motion out of order and that we immediately move to continue dealing with clause-by-clause, and then we can move on to the other matters this committee needs to deal with urgently.
9:25 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Lena Metlege Diab
I've already said I can't entertain that motion until I finish with the clause-by-clause. There's really nothing to rule.
Thank you for all kinds of advice here beside me. I've already asked, shall clause 1 carry? Until that is determined, I can't entertain any other motions.
Mr. Moore.
9:25 a.m.
Conservative
Rob Moore Conservative Fundy Royal, NB
On that, I think your ruling is that we have to deal with clause 1 before you can deal with the motion, not that we have to deal with clause-by-clause. We could have a 300-clause bill, and not being able to entertain motions until it's over would be problematic.
I have to respond to what Mr. Maloney said. We mentioned the gap in the law. If the Minister of Justice is committing to responding to the teachers' concerns.... The teachers' concerns are with a gap in the law that's created by section 43 being removed. What they've said is that section 43 will put teachers and students at risk. That is their testimony. Their testimony is that the Teachers' Federation will advise teachers not to intervene—
9:30 a.m.
Liberal
9:30 a.m.
Liberal
James Maloney Liberal Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON
Mr. Moore can repeat the same comments over and over again. This has nothing to do with what we're talking about. He's trying to characterize my comments and put words in the mouth of others.
We've heard from the witnesses. We've heard these submissions.
This has nothing to do with what we're talking about right now, and I think we should move forward.
9:30 a.m.
Conservative
9:30 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Lena Metlege Diab
Could you give me a minute? Then, yes, I will come back to you. Thank you.
Okay. Please go ahead.
9:30 a.m.
Conservative
Rob Moore Conservative Fundy Royal, NB
Madam Chair, I'm responding to Mr. Maloney's comments that the minister obviously feels that this will leave a gap in the law. Why else would he feel compelled to commit to bringing in legislation? That is the point, that is the concern and that's the foundation for why this bill is not ready to be passed.
The other thing that's extremely troubling for me—Mr. Maloney basically said the quiet part out loud—is that somehow the Liberals and NDP are using the passage of an extremely problematic and controversial private member's bill, which is completely irrelevant in the context of the Supreme Court decision, to hold up Mr. Housefather's study on anti-Semitism, which is urgent and timely. That's what's happening.
I want to be crystal clear: If we do not study the motion on anti-Semitism, which should begin on Monday, we're not going to allow members to use this extremely flawed private member's bill to delay that study.
If we're not studying the motion on anti-Semitism on Monday, it's because the Liberals and NDP don't want to study the motion on anti-Semitism on Monday. It is that clear. There is no rule. If members would like to point me to the rule that says we have to complete our study on this before we can study the anti-Semitism motion on Monday, I would love to see it.
The fact is, everyone around this table knows that there is nothing preventing us from starting that study. This is an attempt to blackmail committee members into moving on to a study by passing an extremely flawed bill.
9:30 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Lena Metlege Diab
Mr. Maloney, was there anything else on that point?
I do want to move on. I've already made my decision. If somebody wishes to challenge me, please go ahead. I welcome that.
This committee has agreed, unreservedly, a number of times that the study on anti-Semitism will commence when we finish this clause-by-clause. Nobody is not agreeing to that. We never put a specific date. In fact, I was trying to figure out a date last time, when nobody was able to agree. We want to finish this clause-by-clause on this bill that we are doing because we do have important work to do other than the bill.
I'm looking for everybody's attention here to continue so that we can do that. I've already made my decision. If anybody wishes to go against it, please say so. I have no problem. As the chair, I welcome it. I will continue, again, now.
Shall clause 1 carry?
(Clause 1 agreed to: yeas 7; nays 4)
Thank you very much.
I'm going to ask the member to move G-1.
Mr. Moore.
9:35 a.m.
Conservative
Rob Moore Conservative Fundy Royal, NB
Subject to and in compliance with your ruling, we've dealt with that amendment.
I would like to now move a motion, irrespective of any misunderstanding of decisions that were made in the past, that this committee begin our study on anti-Semitism on Monday and on Thursday of next week.
9:35 a.m.
Liberal
9:35 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Lena Metlege Diab
I have. I'm not going to allow this particular motion on specific dates, because I know from speaking to committee members that I cannot give a specific date for the study. This is because there are things we have to decide—
9:35 a.m.
Liberal
9:35 a.m.
Conservative
