Committee
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Add search criteria
Results: 1 - 60 of 6418
View Yvonne Jones Profile
Lib. (NL)
View Yvonne Jones Profile
2021-06-14 12:14
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I want to thank our panellists this morning for some wonderful presentations.
I have a couple of things.
As you know, with respect to the hydrogen strategy for Canada, we've already put it out there. The objective is both to ensure there is more development and also to have the right regulatory measures and so on.
Mr. Moore, I appreciate the suggestions you made in your presentation. I would ask that you follow those up in more detail so that our committee can look at them as we move into preparing our final report and putting forward our recommendations.
View Yvonne Jones Profile
Lib. (NL)
View Yvonne Jones Profile
2021-06-14 12:15
Okay. That's great. Thanks.
We talked a lot about the infrastructure and the availability of infrastructure to support hydrogen. Is this something that private companies would be taking on and doing more of themselves, or is it profitable for them to be investing right now into the hydrogen industry?
I know it's a direction we have to go. I'm just concerned about the ability for some of these companies to do this and to meet the potential that is out there for this development and the investment that's required. What would be your thoughts on it?
View Yvonne Jones Profile
Lib. (NL)
View Yvonne Jones Profile
Lib. (NL)
View Yvonne Jones Profile
2021-06-14 12:17
One of the things we've been hearing is the economic profitability of doing this for some Canadian energy companies, and that's where my question is going, maybe in terms of Hydrogène Québec.
Dr. Roy, in your case, when you were presenting, you alluded to this. With the hydrogen that you guys are producing right now, how much energy is used to produce, for example, a tonne of hydrogen?
With regard to transportation of the product, how have you developed that network and been able to make it work from an economic perspective for your company?
View Yvonne Jones Profile
Lib. (NL)
View Yvonne Jones Profile
2021-06-14 12:18
It was to Dr. Roy.
View Scott Simms Profile
Lib. (NL)
Welcome, everybody, back to the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage. Of course, today we are doing some committee business. That is true. However, I think in the first part we want to deal with any of the motions we have out there that we'd like to discuss at this point.
I see a hand up. Monsieur Champoux.
View Scott Simms Profile
Lib. (NL)
Absolutely, Mr. Champoux. That's one of the things I wanted to bring up.
As far as the order of things goes, I see that I have two other people who would like to weigh in, so let me deal with that first before we get to some sort of an agenda about these motions.
Ms. McPherson.
View Scott Simms Profile
Lib. (NL)
Yes, okay. I want to take this sort of as it goes. Can I go to Mr. Rayes first?
View Scott Simms Profile
Lib. (NL)
I'm just trying to come up with an agenda in my head as to what we want to do first.
Mr. Rayes, you have the floor.
View Scott Simms Profile
Lib. (NL)
The short answer is that yes, we did.
Now, Mr. Rayes, do you want me to deal with that in the public portion of the meeting, or do you want to wait until committee business? I was planning to bring it up at committee business. Do you want to deal with it before we go to committee business?
View Scott Simms Profile
Lib. (NL)
Okay. I'll leave that for committee business. I plan to bring that up first when we get into committee business, Monsieur Rayes.
From what I see right now, we have two things to deal with. We have on the table to discuss Ms. McPherson's motion from Friday, June 4. You all have a copy of that. We then go into the motion that was passed unanimously in the House on April 28. We'll get to that in just a few moments.
How about we deal with Ms. McPherson's issue first? She requested at the last meeting that it be brought up and be in public.
Ms. McPherson, you have the floor.
View Scott Simms Profile
Lib. (NL)
Thank you.
Ms. Dabrusin.
View Scott Simms Profile
Lib. (NL)
Mr. Champoux, you have the floor.
View Scott Simms Profile
Lib. (NL)
Mr. Rayes, you have the floor.
View Scott Simms Profile
Lib. (NL)
Okay, very good, Mr. Rayes. You've inspired us to move on.
Seeing no further comment on that, we now go to a vote. You've all seen, read and heard what was put forward by Ms. McPherson. All those in favour?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to)
Mr. Chair: I'll bring this up again in the next conversation, folks, when we talk about the agenda that is coming up, but right now, we're going on to what was accepted in the House by unanimous consent. It was resolved.
Mr. Champoux, before I give you the floor, we're just going to paraphrase some of this stuff. It's just a précis, if you don't mind.
That, following the allegations of psychological abuse, neglect, sexual harassment and racial discrimination of five former members of the Canada Artistic Swimming (CAS) Senior National Team by coaches and staff, the House:
This is where I'll cut some of it down. It's fairly lengthy. It goes on:
(a) recognize that national sports organizations are environments which, due in particular to the extremely intense competitive atmosphere
and so on. Then it says:
(b) recognize that it is the responsibility of the government to do everything in its power to protect our high performance athletes
and:
(c) ask the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage to undertake a study on the establishment of an independent body for handling complaints in sport which will establish a climate of trust so that victims can report without fear of reprisals
I know you all have a copy. I thought I would just do that in case anybody is watching us through a webcast, but that's what we're discussing.
Mr. Champoux, you have the floor.
View Scott Simms Profile
Lib. (NL)
View Scott Simms Profile
Lib. (NL)
Before I go to Mr. Rayes, yes, that's going to be part of the discussion we can have regarding the whole schedule in the broader context as to what we do first. We have to line that up.
In the meantime I will do some consulting about this, Ms. McPherson. I think you raise a very good point as to the scope of the study. I'll leave it at that for now. We can probably discuss this again a little later. Thank you for bringing that up.
Mr. Rayes.
View Scott Simms Profile
Lib. (NL)
View Scott Simms Profile
Lib. (NL)
Madame Bessette, I apologize. The interpreters are having a problem with your sound. I think it might be cutting in and out.
View Scott Simms Profile
Lib. (NL)
I can hear you now, but go ahead and we'll see how it goes.
View Scott Simms Profile
Lib. (NL)
Thank you, Mrs. Bessette.
Folks, we have a couple of things to consider here. I know that during committee business we normally do this in camera. We have a choice. We can either stay in public or we can go in camera to discuss the committee business. It appears I need a motion to do that, and I can't move the motion myself to go in camera. Otherwise we have to stay public. Would anyone like to move a motion, or no?
Mr. Rayes.
View Scott Simms Profile
Lib. (NL)
Okay. As I said, I have no issues being in public either. It's just that every time we've done meetings talking about the future schedule, we've always done them in camera. I'm just doing this based on our usual practice, but if you want to stay in public, that's fine; we can do that. If you don't, you can just move a motion to go in camera.
Mr. Champoux.
View Scott Simms Profile
Lib. (NL)
Okay. Before I go to Ms. Dabrusin, I'll just start right now. We've started in committee business, just so that everyone knows. I certainly have no problem going public. That's great. We'll stay in public for now. We'll talk about the business. What I'm going to do is list the motions that we have passed for upcoming studies and other things we want to look at as well. Before I do that, however, I'll go to Ms. Dabrusin.
View Scott Simms Profile
Lib. (NL)
That was very generous of you.
I'm not moving off of the issue about sports; I will get back to that in just a few moments. Right now, though, I will give you the broad context of what we're looking at over the next little while, upcoming studies or ones already before the committee.
The supplementary estimates (A) are to be considered, as we normally do. The seventh allotted day, Thursday, June 19, is really our deadline for reporting them back. It's too late to do votes on supplementary estimates (A), as Bill C-10 took a big chunk of the time, but we can study the estimates as subject matter. I'll just leave that right there, that we can do that if you so desire.
Let's get into the motion on anti-Asian racism that was adopted on March 26. I don't have to go through the whole motion. It was just talked about. I will say, however, that there was one stipulation in it that said, “no later than 180 calendar days from the adoption of this motion; and that, pursuant to Standing Order 109, the government table a comprehensive response.” Now, 180 calendar days from the adoption of the motion on March 26 is Tuesday, September 21. Please bear that in mind. That's basically when we come back. I forget the actual date.
On to the next one, which was adopted on April 12:
That the Committee devote at least one meeting before the summer recess to hear from witnesses on the continuing challenges for publishers, creators and artists as it pertains to fair compensation for their work in...educational publishing in Canada.
That's number three.
We also have this motion, which was adopted on June 11. It reads, in part, as follows:
That the Committee invite officials from the Department of Canadian Heritage to testify about the funding for the discovery of the remains of 215 Indigenous children on the grounds of a former residential school in Kamloops....
That was from Mr. Waugh.
We also have the ongoing issue of Facebook, and the correspondence we've had since our summons to Mr. Zuckerberg, about his appearing before committee. I can brief you on that so far, and perhaps Mr. Housefather can as well, as he's been involved. There is that issue.
View Scott Simms Profile
Lib. (NL)
We just adopted the motion by Ms. McPherson regarding the deal from 2017—the agreement between Netflix and the Department of Canadian Heritage.
The final one would be the independent body for complaints in sport as a study we look into, as we just spoke about.
Before I go for comments, I want to highlight those two things regarding a timeline.
We have the anti-Asian racism motion, which talks about “no later than 180 days from the adoption of the motion”, which takes us to September 21. The educational publishing issue asks for one meeting before the summer recess.
Now I'll ask for comments.
Oh, good. I see Mr. Champoux.
View Scott Simms Profile
Lib. (NL)
Thank you, Mr. Champoux.
Just before I go to Ms. McPherson, for clarification, there are no punishments per se if we ignore a deadline. These are just self-imposed deadlines, and there are no heavy ramifications if we do not meet them. However, you would need to move a motion if you want to change something within that, as far as the dates are concerned. I hear what you're saying.
Ms. McPherson.
View Scott Simms Profile
Lib. (NL)
View Scott Simms Profile
Lib. (NL)
Yes, we have three meetings left.
Just for clarification, in September we don't really have the schedule per se. If we maintain the current one then, yes, Ms. McPherson is right that we would have one meeting, so please bear that in mind. That is, of course, dealing with anti-Asian racism, and our self-imposed deadline is September 21.
Ms. Dabrusin.
View Scott Simms Profile
Lib. (NL)
Thank you, Ms. Dabrusin.
You're proposing this Friday to start with Mr. Waugh's study, and then on Monday to go to the copyright study—the publishing one.
All right. We've heard those.
Mr. Champoux.
View Scott Simms Profile
Lib. (NL)
One moment, please.
The question was directed at Mr. Waugh. I probably should give him the option of voicing his opinion, if he so desires, or I could just go to Ms. Dabrusin.
Mr. Waugh, could you just hold your microphone close to your mouth when you speak?
View Scott Simms Profile
Lib. (NL)
Okay.
Ms. Dabrusin, did you want to comment on that?
View Scott Simms Profile
Lib. (NL)
Thanks to both of you for that clarification.
Mr. Rayes.
View Scott Simms Profile
Lib. (NL)
View Scott Simms Profile
Lib. (NL)
Thank you.
I'm seeing a couple of things here that are starting to line up. After today's meeting, we have two meetings left.
I'm hearing that we should start with the motion put forward regarding the Kamloops residential school issue on Friday, and then the following Monday we'll debate the motion on educational publishing in Canada.
Do I see any dissension from that? I don't see any, and it looks like we can put that to rest for the end of this spring.
I would like to have some direction, though, about where....
Mr. Louis, go ahead.
View Scott Simms Profile
Lib. (NL)
That's a valid point. Here's what I will put forward for the committee to consider.
The deadline you speak of is on the calendar. It's September 21. We don't know what the exact schedule is going to be when we reconvene in September, when the House sits again, but we do have a hard deadline of 180 days.
Here's what we could do. On Friday, we will have our initial meeting, and at the end of that meeting, we can have a discussion as to where to go from here. Again, this is a self-imposed deadline. It's not as strict. Maybe at the end of that meeting, if a motion is required to change it, we can do that.
Does everyone understand? I'm just saying to have the first meeting this Friday, and at the end of that meeting we can make a decision on where to go from there.
Mr. Champoux, go ahead.
View Scott Simms Profile
Lib. (NL)
My goodness, yes, I was. You're right. I was wondering why people looked so puzzled. I confused the two. I apologize. The 180 calendar days was from the anti-Asian motion.
One of the great things about being the chair of this committee is that you're so much smarter than I am. You're the best. I love it.
Nevertheless, that aside, we should probably still run the same type of thing this coming Friday. This Friday, we can have the full meeting, and at the end of the meeting, we can make a decision from there.
How's that? Thank you for your patience.
On Monday, we can follow up with the educational publishing in Canada issue regarding copyright.
That being said, would you like to start a discussion as to what our priority could be when we come back?
Here's the situation. At the end of June, this type of format will not be sanctioned anymore. Obviously, something has to be done, but nevertheless, that sort of thing ends, so most of the conversations, I would assume, when it comes to organizing the fall, will occur offline.
We can correspond through Aimée, the clerk, and we can decide how we want to organize by helping to set up witnesses before we come back.
However, that being said, there are several motions there. Do we have any thoughts on what we'd like to do when we reconvene in the fall? I'm just looking for a general priority list.
I see Mr. Rayes.
View Scott Simms Profile
Lib. (NL)
Does anyone else have any opinions on the fall? I won't say it would be written in stone, but possibly a priority list. I'll just leave it at that for now.
Seeing no further discussion, I'll leave Mr. Rayes' comment as the final comment on that.
We have two meetings left. We've come to the decision that on Friday, we will discuss Mr. Waugh's motion. We'll start that study. Then the following Monday we will have one meeting, as requested, on educational publishing in Canada. That will take us to the end of the spring sitting for the committee.
Is there any other business anyone wishes to discuss?
I apologize. Aimée just sent me a friendly little note reminding me about a witness list. We need some ideas on a witness list for this coming Friday.
Mr. Waugh, did you want to start? I don't know if you're able to put your hand up, but I think you may want to weigh in on this.
Could I just get you to hold on to your microphone again?
View Scott Simms Profile
Lib. (NL)
I'm sorry. I will just rephrase what Mr. Waugh said, which was that the people who are specifically mentioned in the motion are there. To expand on that, if you want others, you have to let us know as soon as possible.
Mr. Waugh, with a nod, were those the only people right now?
He says yes. The people mentioned in the motion are the people he wishes to invite for that particular meeting.
Madam Dabrusin.
View Scott Simms Profile
Lib. (NL)
View Scott Simms Profile
Lib. (NL)
Yes. What I will do is this. We'll stick to the witness list as put in the motion itself, and then we can make a decision at the end of the meeting. I just wanted to make sure everyone was comfortable with that.
The other witness list I was speaking of was the one for Monday, which is Mr. Rayes's motion on educational publishing. We need to establish a deadline, which would be Wednesday, normally, two days from now. However, I would stress to everyone here, when it comes to that one meeting on educational publishing in Canada, please send the list to us as soon as possible, because we have to set it up. Since we have Friday and Monday meetings, it's like we have to set up witnesses for two meetings at once during the week.
I won't say anything further about the witness lists.
Mr. Rayes, it was your motion. Did you want to comment on any potential witnesses? Would you rather just send in your names in the next little while?
View Scott Simms Profile
Lib. (NL)
Okay. If we need to discuss it on Friday at the end, I'll clear a few minutes for that as well. Friday and Monday, I have specific deadlines, and obviously Wednesday. Honestly, if you have someone in mind, please send it to us as soon as possible, given the tight time frame we are under.
That being said, is there anything further?
On these two meetings, do you want to do the format that we ended with before Bill C-10, which was a two-hour meeting with no break, and let's say we have...? Well, it doesn't matter how many witnesses we have.
Would you rather do the two hours with all witnesses, or would you rather break it up, hour to hour, and then have different witnesses?
Mr. Champoux.
View Scott Simms Profile
Lib. (NL)
Okay. I think we're going to stick to the witnesses that are within Mr. Waugh's motion for now. I totally agree.
In the meantime, I'll schedule it for a full two hours with how many witnesses we have, and we'll see how far we go with that.
Is there any other business that anyone would like to bring up?
Great. Thank you, everyone.
We will see you on Friday at our usual place and usual time.
The meeting is adjourned.
View Scott Simms Profile
Lib. (NL)
Welcome back, everyone, to clause-by-clause on Bill C-10 at the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage.
To people listening to us, viewing us from afar on the web, on the Internet, you have my apologies. We had a technical problem there at the beginning. We are now overdue, obviously, but nevertheless here we are.
We're going to resume our consideration of clause-by-clause, under what we have received from the House of Commons and the procedure that we are going through.
Before I get into that, however, I want to address something that was raised by Mr. Waugh about a motion of his. I seemed to indicate on Friday that it would be okay. Unfortunately, in this case we cannot deal this since we are now under the ruling that came from the House. We're proceeding with the debate and the clause-by-clause consideration.
However, that being said, I just wanted to bring it up, because I wanted to assure you. Obviously, it fits within the confines of the 48 hours' rule. Therefore, when we finish with Bill C-10, and we have time left over, why doesn't the first order of business be your motion, once we are done?
Just to give everyone a heads-up, when we end we will go to Mr. Waugh's motion. You have received the motion. Please give it your due consideration before that meeting arrives. Following the finish of this particular bill, we'll go into Mr. Waugh's motion.
I think that's about it before we start.
I just also wanted to remind everyone about some of the rules we have here.
We cannot engage in debate. As we go through this there can be no amendments or subamendments, as directed by the majority of the House of Commons on a ruling that took place last week on time allocation.
The only time you will hear me talk more than perhaps you desire, nevertheless, is when I make a ruling on a particular amendment. All the amendments you received in your package will be discussed. If I need to make a ruling I will do so, and I will explain to the best of my ability as to why it is inadmissible.
I promise you, since there is no opportunity to talk about the particular motion by the person who moved it, I will pause—hopefully there will not be an awkward silence—and give time for all of you to consider, because you do have the option to appeal. You can challenge the chair's ruling.
We've already done that once, but I felt at the time I was probably moving a little bit too quickly, and for that I apologize. What I will do, if I have to make a ruling on inadmissibility, is that I will take a pause and you can decide whether you want to appeal that ruling.
Let's go back to where we were.
We are now moving—
View Scott Simms Profile
Lib. (NL)
It does, Mr. Genuis. I appreciate your argument, I really do, but at first blush I would have to say this is an argument, I think, you should probably make in front of the House, as per their order. I do have these instructions. When I get challenged, I have to rule the other way. I don't have much more scope than that, other than the debates, the amendments and the subamendments that may follow, as I said. Yes, if I make a ruling and it's overruled, I have nowhere to go but the other direction, obviously.
View Scott Simms Profile
Lib. (NL)
This is no reflection on your argument whatsoever, other than the fact that you may be right on target, but I think you're wide of the mark as to where your argument may be best put.
View Scott Simms Profile
Lib. (NL)
I can get back to you on that, by the way. If we have a three-hour meeting, we're obviously going to have a break at some point, I assume. During that break, I will confer with the legislative clerks about your point, but at first blush, I think your argument is probably well placed within the context of the House of Commons.
View Scott Simms Profile
Lib. (NL)
I'll consult on that as well, Mr. Genuis.
View Scott Simms Profile
Lib. (NL)
I will. I promise.
In the meantime, when it comes to challenging the chair, like I said, I have two ways to go. I can either stick with my original ruling or go the opposite way, which I did the last time. Further to that, I don't know what to tell you other than the fact that we can't allow debate and we can't allow amendments, and those are pretty crystal clear from the ruling that we received from the majority of the House.
I do thank you for your point of order, and I will look into it during the first break.
(On clause 8)
The Chair: That said, we left off at and are now at G-13(N).
(Amendment agreed to: yeas 11; nays 0 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(Clause 8 as amended agreed to: yeas 7; nays 4)
(On clause 9)
View Scott Simms Profile
Lib. (NL)
This brings us to CPC-10.1, put forward by Mr. Rayes.
(Amendment agreed to: yeas 6; nays 5 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(Clause 9 as amended agreed to: yeas 7; nays 4)
(On clause 10)
View Scott Simms Profile
Lib. (NL)
The first one we are dealing with is PV-24. This is the first of the PV amendments. As I ruled earlier, the amendments from the Green Party are automatically deemed moved due to an order that we decided upon at the beginning of this Parliament.
I wish to discuss it.
PV-24 attempts to remove the discretionary power of the CRTC to make regulations when needed, to force the CRTC to make them in all cases referred to in proposed subsection 11.1(1) of the act. As a result, this power was not originally envisioned in Bill C-10 itself.
That being said, according to page 770 of [Technical difficulty—Editor] goes beyond the principle and scope of the bill.
I'll repeat how that works. This bill has been accepted at second reading, which means we accept the principle and the scope that the bill puts out there. This particular amendment goes beyond the principle and scope of the bill, which we've already voted on. Therefore, it exceeds the will of the House in this particular case.
I have to make a ruling that PV-24 is inadmissible.
I'll give you a moment to reflect. I hope everybody's well.
Now, if you go back to your hymn books, we'll move on to LIB-8, moved by Mr. Housefather.
(Amendment agreed to: yeas 7; nays 4 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
View Scott Simms Profile
Lib. (NL)
Now we go to BQ-28, which was put forward by Mr. Champoux.
(Amendment negatived: nays 9; yeas 2 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: This brings us to LIB-9.
I forgot to mention off the top, for anyone just joining us that when I say LIB and these titles, similar to what you would hear at bingo, essentially what this is.... LIB is an amendment put forward by the Liberal party. CPC would be one put forward by the Conservative members of the committee. BQ would be one put forward by the Bloc Québécois members. “NDP” followed by a number would be one from the New Democrat on the committee, and PV—Parti Vert—would be for amendments put forward and deemed moved by the Green Party, primarily Mr. Manly. Finally, G means that it's an amendment put forward by the government.
That being said, as I mentioned, we're on LIB-9, which was put forward by Mr. Housefather.
I have a note before you start [Technical difficulty—Editor ]. I'll say this slowly. If LIB-9 is adopted, BQ-29 becomes moot, as they both contain the same provisions. They are similar enough that you are voting on both LIB-9 and BQ-29.
Officially, it's LIB-9 that we're voting on.
(Amendment agreed to: yeas 10; nays 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
View Scott Simms Profile
Lib. (NL)
That brings us to BQ-30, which was put forward by Mr. Champoux.
(Amendment negatived: nays 9; yeas 2 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(Clause 10 as amended agreed to: yeas 7; nays 4)
(Clause 11 agreed to: yeas 7; nays 4)
( On clause 12)
View Scott Simms Profile
Lib. (NL)
We have some amendments for clause 12. We have BQ-31 put forward by Mr. Champoux, but there is a note. Before you vote, I want everyone to be aware that, if BQ-31 is adopted, then PV-25 becomes moot, as it contains the same provisions as BQ-31. That's PV-25, which would normally fall later, but it's similar to BQ-31, so essentially you're voting on both.
(Amendment negatived: nays 9; yeas 2 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
View Scott Simms Profile
Lib. (NL)
I declare the amendment negatived, and I declare the same for PV-25.
Those were the only amendments for clause 12. Therefore, we go directly to the clause vote.
(Clause 12 agreed to: yeas 7; nays 4)
View Scott Simms Profile
Lib. (NL)
Next we have new clause 12.1, in amendment G-14, which was put forward by Ms. Dabrusin.
(Amendment agreed to: yeas 7; nays 4 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
View Scott Simms Profile
Lib. (NL)
Thank you very much for the clarification. That brings us to the end.
Shall clause 13 carry as amended?
View Scott Simms Profile
Lib. (NL)
I apologize. It was a straight-up clause.
The amendment was in the last one we carried, which was considered new clause 12.1.
(Clause 13 agreed to: yeas 7; nays 4)
The Chair: Mr. Méla, thank you for pointing that out. Thank goodness for smart people.
With clause 13 carried, we now move on to the next amendment, which brings us to CPC-11.
View Scott Simms Profile
Lib. (NL)
You have the floor, Mr. Rayes.
View Scott Simms Profile
Lib. (NL)
Yes. I just declared what it was, so it is now deemed moved. Therefore, you'll have to have unanimous consent to withdraw it.
Does Mr. Rayes have unanimous consent to withdraw CPC-11? I don't hear any noes.
(Amendment withdrawn)
Results: 1 - 60 of 6418 | Page: 1 of 107

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
>
>|
Export As: XML CSV RSS

For more data options, please see Open Data