Committee
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Add search criteria
Results: 136 - 150 of 1985
View Martin Champoux Profile
BQ (QC)
View Martin Champoux Profile
2021-06-07 11:23
I am proposing that Ms. McPherson's motion be amended at the end to specify the motion is conditional on the outcome of the talks between the party leaders.
I don't know what the exact wording should be. Perhaps one of the legislative clerks could help with that. I am no expert on legislative wording, but I would just say something to the effect of “all conditional on the outcome of the party leaders' discussions”.
View Heather McPherson Profile
NDP (AB)
Mr. Chair, I have a few things.
First of all, in terms of Mr. Champoux's amendment to the motion, I had suggested that we could go forward in an in-person format. I recognize that the House leaders—I am a deputy House leader myself—are discussing what the hybrid will look like into the summer months. I was not proposing that we use the hybrid system but rather come to Ottawa, travel to Ottawa, for the meetings. We could probably have longer meetings and get a little bit more done.
In terms of the questions put forward both by Mr. Rayes and Ms. Dabrusin, I very much feel that we are now in a situation where the Liberals have put forward a flawed bill. We are trying to fix that bill. We are trying to be propositional and we are trying to fix that bill. The Liberals have now put forward in the House, not in committee, a time allocation of five hours. That is wholly insufficient to get through the remaining amendments that need to be examined so that we make sure that we have good legislation. That's wholly insufficient. Such a heavy-handed manoeuvre hasn't been done for decades. It has not been done for decades. The last time it was done, there were 10 hours allocated, twice as long.
I have some real concerns about being told by Ms. Dabrusin that I am choosing to either support the Liberals' very heavy-handed move through time allocation or abandon it and support the very disturbing and very wrong-headed comments of my colleague from Lethbridge. I feel like we're in a situation where the flawed legislation that was brought forward by this government needs to get fixed, and the Conservatives are making it impossible for us to fix that legislation.
I'm incredibly frustrated by both the Liberals and the Conservatives on their inability to see that we have a job to do, that we have an obligation to work as hard as we can—
View Julie Dabrusin Profile
Lib. (ON)
Mr. Chair, I want to revisit the point that there's absolutely a need to move to time allocation, because we could sit all summer. We are going through entire meetings without voting on a single amendment. For the past several meetings, even when we do vote on an amendment, it's one or two a meeting. At that pace, we will not complete the study of Bill C-10 . We will just keep going for months and months and months.
I do believe there's a bit of a disconnect, if anything, on that, to say that if we just add in a few more meetings this summer we'll be able to complete it. That's clearly not what's been shown over the past weeks and even, I would say, months.
View Anthony Housefather Profile
Lib. (QC)
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
I really appreciate Mr. Champoux's contributions, which he always makes in good faith.
I have nothing against his amendment, but I do object to the main motion by Ms. McPherson. I'll tell you why.
I want to say this with all my friendship for Ms. McPherson, who, again, I respect very much as a member of the committee. Normally, I would agree with this motion. Normally, I would agree that we should work all summer to get a law right and to continue debate as long as there was actual debate going on that was reasonable with respect to each amendment, but that's not happening.
In the last meeting, we spent two hours filibustering on an amendment that each and every member of this committee voted against. Each and every member of this committee was going to be against it from minute number one, yet we spent two hours on it. As someone who has really tried in good faith to work with members of all parties on this committee from the beginning, I have at this point grown completely exasperated by what has happened in terms of us not working in good faith, so I see no reason for us to sit here having meeting after meeting of two or four hours and not advancing on the bill.
I don't see any other alternative to move forward at this point, unless I see a huge change in comportment from the Conservatives, than going to time allocation. I'll vote for Mr. Champoux's subamendment, but I'm going to vote against the motion as amended, because I just don't see that it's going to help us in any way.
Thanks very much for the effort, though, Ms. McPherson.
View Alain Rayes Profile
CPC (QC)
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I think what Mr. Champoux is proposing is entirely appropriate. It shows great respect for the work of parliamentarians and the House leaders, who are trying to arrive at a democratic compromise through their talks. I think the amendment is in line with what Ms. McPherson is proposing.
However, it's unfortunate that all the blame is being laid at the Conservatives' door. I repeat, we are where we are because the minister brought forward a bad bill, plain and simple. The bill was full of flaws. It has been amended along the way, so it's entirely appropriate that we take the time to study it properly, instead of being subjected to a time allocation motion by the government, through the House of Commons, to expedite the committee's work. That hasn't happened in more than 20 years, not even under Mr. Harper's Conservative government.
For the past six years, the Liberal leader has said over and over again that committees work independently. The Liberals on the committee are doing the best they can. This is a very unusual situation.
Ms. McPherson, I repeat, we are relatively in favour of your motion. I'm not sure I fully understood what was said after I last had the floor, but I think it's one meeting too soon to adopt the motion, since a time allocation motion may be coming.
If we must adopt your motion only to have it nullified by the gag order imposed by the Liberals, then we must. If not, we can move forward.
View Martin Champoux Profile
BQ (QC)
View Martin Champoux Profile
2021-06-07 11:33
When someone moves an amendment to a motion, a debate is obviously supposed to follow.
Fundamentally, I'm somewhat resistant to the idea of doing things out of order. I am of the mind that we should discuss Bill C‑10 as long as possible because I firmly believe that we should pass it. Obviously, my first choice is not to extend into the summer, but if we must, let's do it.
I put forward an amendment to ensure that, if Ms. McPherson's motion was adopted, the discussions under way between the party leaders would not interfere with the decisions we made here, in committee. I simply wanted to make sure we were going to do things in an orderly way.
That said, as was pointed out earlier, there is no point holding additional meetings if we are going to spend them dragging things out, filibustering and preventing Bill C‑10 from ever seeing the light of day, because there are groups who are strongly opposed.
I wanted to make clear my intention, which is essentially to give us some peace of mind in light of the discussions between the party leaders, should Ms. McPherson's motion be adopted.
View Scott Simms Profile
Lib. (NL)
No, we adjourn the debate. It's as simple as that. We then go on to what we were dealing with earlier, which was clause-by-clause on Bill C-10.
Is everybody okay?
View Scott Simms Profile
Lib. (NL)
Is everyone clear on that?
We're adjourning the debate.
Madam Clerk, we are voting on the motion to adjourn the debate.
(Motion agreed to: yeas 6; nays 5)
The Chair: The debate has been adjourned. We cannot bring that debate back into play for the rest of this meeting, but we can at subsequent meetings, just so you know, and that will be the motion by Ms. McPherson.
We are now proceeding to clause-by-clause.
We're going to pick up again with a CPC amendment; however, that being said, we have to take a break at this time. I need to have a discussion with the table staff regarding the proposed amendments, so I'm looking at about five minutes.
We're going to suspend for about five minutes. Thank you.
View Scott Simms Profile
Lib. (NL)
We're back.
First of all, I want to say a huge thank you to our technical staff for all of these breaks, suspensions and so on. Our technical staff handled it masterfully, I might add. We don't say that enough, but we thank you so much.
Let's get back to the amendments at hand. These are amendments regarding clause 7 that just came to us from the Conservative Party.
Mr. Rayes, I want to point something out before we go any further. I feel it's only necessary I do this in the course of debate.
We have from 9.2 up to 9.6 regarding clause 7, and they follow in succession. However, I would like you to have a look at CPC-9.4. The last three reference numbers are 725. I want you to have a look at that for a moment. There is a problem here in the sense that, as you know, we propose these amendments in the order in which they come in the bill itself, which is C-10.
What you're aiming to do in this case, by adding after line 2 on page 8 of clause 7, should have been moved before PV-21.1, which we debated at the last meeting and voted on at this meeting. It should have been done just before that. So CPC-9.4, 725, is not in its right order. The others are. I'm bringing this to your attention now in case you were hoping to incorporate that into your overall debate. Normally, I'd get to it and make a ruling, but I thought maybe you should know now before you proceed any further.
With that in mind, we return to our clause-by-clause consideration.
Right now, we are on amendment CPC-9.2. Again, the last three numbers of the reference number are 583.
Mr. Rayes, I'm going to give you the floor. If you need any points of clarification on the ruling I just made about 9.4, by all means, ask. In the meantime, you can proceed with CPC-9.2. We're still on clause 7.
Go ahead, sir, you have floor.
Sorry, sir, you're on mute. It's still Monday.
View Alain Rayes Profile
CPC (QC)
All right. I will move it in due course. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I imagine it's time for me to move amendment CPC‑9.2.
The committee is at an impasse given the disagreement over the various parties who post content on social media. As we understand Bill C‑10, the CRTC—
View Alain Rayes Profile
CPC (QC)
Thank you for being so kind, Mr. Chair. I certainly appreciate it.
To ensure the committee does things in the proper order, as Mr. Méla explained, I am seeking unanimous consent from the committee to discuss amendment CPC‑9.4. If I don't get it, I will come back to amendment CPC‑9.2 when I am allowed to do so.
View Scott Simms Profile
Lib. (NL)
Thank you very much for your patience, everyone.
Again, the last three numbers are 725. It is CPC-9.4. Mr. Rayes is asking to go back and do that amendment. He's seeking unanimous consent to go back and do that. I'm repeating myself only because I want everyone to fully understand what he's asking for.
It is out of order. We should have dealt with it before, but in order to return to that, we need unanimous consent.
Does Mr. Rayes have unanimous consent?
View Scott Simms Profile
Lib. (NL)
Sorry, sir, you do not.
That's CPC-9.4, which you can now take out of your package.
We will now go to CPC-9.2, reference number 583.
Monsieur Rayes, once again, sir, you have the floor.
Thank you for your patience.
Results: 136 - 150 of 1985 | Page: 10 of 133

|<
<
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
>
>|
Export As: XML CSV RSS

For more data options, please see Open Data