Committee
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Add search criteria
Results: 106 - 120 of 2083
View Scott Simms Profile
Lib. (NL)
That was my understanding as well.
If anybody does not have the motions from Ms. McPherson, they should let the clerk know so they can receive a copy.
That being said, I don't see anybody up right now.
As I mentioned, we are on PV-21.1, an amendment put forward by Mr. Manly. We will pick up the discussion where we left off. We are still in clause-by-clause. I don't see anyone who wishes to speak to it.
Now that debate has collapsed, that brings us to our vote.
(Amendment negatived: nays 11; yeas 0 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: This now brings us to the end of clause 7. It seems like only yesterday we had just begun on clause 7.
Mr. Méla.
View Heather McPherson Profile
NDP (AB)
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I brought forward a motion last week for this committee because I am quite concerned that we are not progressing through Bill C-10 at the rate that I think we all want to. I hope that everybody on this committee is interested in making sure that we get the very best piece of legislation that we possibly can at the end of this clause-by-clause process, and that we are all being very propositional to add amendments to try to make this the very best legislation we can, which will protect the Canadian broadcasting landscape, protect Canadian artists and our cultural sector, which is vitally important, and also ensure that Canadians' freedom of expression is protected.
I want to be as propositional as I can. I want to work with all committee members to make this happen. I know it's extremely important legislation. As we know, it has not been updated in 30 years and it's well overdue.
I know there are times during July and August that we are unable to sit, and I do also realize that this would mean we would be sitting, in person, in Ottawa, but I would like to propose that the committee take the decision to sit into July and August to ensure that we have time to complete this work. I think that allocating to stop the debate and to stop the conversation on Bill C-10 would cause a lot of problems, because we won't have had time to go through the important amendments that I know all parties are putting forward.
That said, I also think that filibustering and not letting us get this work done is also a mistake. This gives us a little bit more space, a little bit more runway to get a good piece of legislation.
View Julie Dabrusin Profile
Lib. (ON)
Thank you.
I agree with Ms. McPherson that extra time would have helped, certainly at the beginning, to try to move this forward. In fact, several times at the beginning of the study of Bill C-10, I tried to get extra time for extra meetings so that we could move through this quickly.
We have now reached a point where, in the last meeting, we did not vote on a single amendment. Adding extra meetings during the summer isn't going to help us get to where we need to be because at this point, we have just reached a standstill. Quite frankly, Ms. McPherson is well aware that there is a motion for time allocation and I would hope she would support that so that we can put this important bill forward and make sure that we are doing what we need to have web giants pay their fair share and to support Canadian artists.
I would point out that the Conservatives have been filibustering here at committee, as is their right to do by parliamentary procedure, the same as it is our right to bring forward a motion for time allocation.
I would like to point out to Ms. McPherson that I think it's been laid bare at this point, when I am looking at statements that have been made by the Conservatives, that the issue here isn't about freedom of expression that they are really pushing for. In fact, I would just point out what Ms. Harder stated to her local press about Bill C-10 specifically, and what is trying to be done. The quote I have is:
These artists are not able to make a living off of what they are producing, so they require grants that are given to them by the government. And so these little, niche lobby groups composed of outdated artists are going to the Liberal government and asking them to charge these large streaming companies in order to bring about more money to put into these grant funds so these outdated artists can then apply for that money so they can continue to create material Canadians don’t want to watch.
That's the fight we're in about Bill C-10 right now. That is saying that artists like the Arkells or shows like Heartland are not things that Canadian want to watch, and that we shouldn't be supporting, as a government. I don't believe that's true.
My question for Ms. McPherson is, is she going to support time allocation so that we can move forward to support artists, or is she going to take the position that these are outdated artists whom we don't need to be providing support for?
View Martin Champoux Profile
BQ (QC)
View Martin Champoux Profile
2021-06-07 11:17
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I support and applaud what my fellow member Ms. Dabrusin just said in relation to the Conservative member's recent comments in the Lethbridge Herald about her party's position on the situation of artists. Frankly, I was very concerned by the party's view of the cultural sector as well as its read on Bill C‑10, which I think is completely wrong. No doubt, we'll have a chance to revisit the matter later.
I want to speak to Ms. McPherson's motion. As everyone knows, the party leaders are in the midst of negotiating next steps regarding a summer schedule. The committee can't decide to sit in hybrid format until the powers that be have come to an agreement.
In light of that, I think we would do well to propose an amendment to Ms. McPherson's motion, specifying that the motion is conditional on the outcome of the discussions between the party leaders.
I am not suggesting Ms. McPherson's motion has no merit, but I do think we should take into account the talks under way, which will certainly override some of the committee's decisions.
I therefore move that the motion be amended by adding wording to the effect that it is conditional on the outcome of the discussions between the party leaders.
View Alain Rayes Profile
CPC (QC)
That's fine.
Ms. McPherson, I think what you're trying to do is very noble. We, on our side, have no problem continuing the discussion on Bill C‑10. As we have repeatedly pointed out, the bill has numerous flaws. It's a complex piece of legislation that was poorly thought‑out from the get‑go; it has undergone all kinds of amendments, with more on the way—very significant ones, I might add. I do not see how we can pass this bill without having had the time to take a comprehensive look at it.
Ms. Dabrusin said it was a bit late. Personally, I find it a bit early since we are expecting a time allocation motion to be put forward today. That would bring the committee's work to an end. With a time allocation motion, the Liberals are choosing to put an end to the work before the committee, even though we are constantly told that committees are independent.
I don't necessarily want to propose an amendment to your motion, Ms. McPherson, but I do have something to suggest, ever so politely, of course. Should we not put off consideration of your motion until Friday, to see whether the Liberals follow through on their ultimatum and move a time allocation motion? If they do, it will render your motion unnecessary. If they do not, your motion will be entirely appropriate.
That is my humble suggestion.
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 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 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?
Results: 106 - 120 of 2083 | Page: 8 of 139

|<
<
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
>
>|
Export As: XML CSV RSS

For more data options, please see Open Data