Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Before we start, I also want to take a moment to offer my most sincere condolences to our colleagues for the passing of our colleague and friend, Mr. Carr. We had the opportunity to work with him on the committee for a few months. He will certainly be missed by all. Personally, I learned a lot from this gentleman during those few months. My thoughts go out to his family and colleagues.

I also want to thank my colleagues from the Liberal Party and the NDP for supporting my request. I think we all agree on the fact that amendment G‑4 is quite significant. Some people did not have the opportunity to be heard on the subject and the impact of this amendment to Bill C‑21.

I think it could be beneficial to hear from new witnesses at this stage of clause-by-clause study. I’m given to understand that the Conservatives found my process to be underhanded. Personally, it seemed illogical to follow the same approach I used the day before. Indeed, when I asked for unanimous consent from members to receive experts for two meetings, the response was clearly negative from the Conservative members. That’s the reason why I didn’t consult them about this request, made pursuant to Standing Order 106(4). However, I noted some open-mindedness from my Liberal and NDP colleagues, which is why I consulted them. I am glad they accepted my request.

I appreciate the fact that the committee can ask officials to answer our questions and help us. However, as they said a few times, they cannot go beyond certain limits.

As I said, and I will say it again, if I propose an amendment to a bill, my colleagues will ask why I tabled such an amendment, what I based it on and why I phrased it that way. So, I’m the one who has to answer those questions. I won’t have a few officials at my back to give answers.

I therefore think it’s necessary to have independent experts appear so they can shed light on some issues. It’s necessary to invite groups who did not have the opportunity to appear, because we think Bill C‑21 and amendment G‑4 will have broader consequences than what was outlined at the beginning, when we heard from the first witnesses.

That’s the request I’m making. I asked my colleagues to be reasonable in their debates. I proposed two meetings. I think that will give us the opportunity to hear from up to 12 groups or so, if we hear from three witnesses an hour. That’s close to the norm. So, four hours of meetings seems reasonable enough to allow each party present to hear from the groups they will have contacted beforehand. That is what I propose.

To do this, Mr. Chair, I will table the following motion, which was sent to the interpreters, so that they may read it out in English as I read it out in French. We also sent it to the clerk.

That the Committee temporarily suspend the clause-by-clause study of Bill C‑21 and that it allocate two consecutive meetings to study the effects of Amendment G‑4, beginning at the next Committee meeting; That the Committee invite to testify the witnesses and experts that it deem necessary to hear in order to answer the questions raised by the new concepts added by the Amendment G‑4 and that the Committee proceed according to the usual routine rules for the invitations of the selected witnesses; That upon completion of the testimonies, the Committee resume its clause-by-clause consideration where it had been suspended and proceed according to the usual rules pursuant to Standing Order 75 of the House of Commons.

I’d like to hear my colleagues’ opinion on the matter.

Thank you very much.

Kristina Michaud

$653,848.00