Committee
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Add search criteria
Results: 1 - 100 of 59288
View Judy A. Sgro Profile
Lib. (ON)
Welcome to this meeting number 37 of the Standing Committee on International Trade. I'm thrilled to be able to call the meeting to order.
This meeting is being held pursuant to the order of reference of January 25, and the order of reference sent to the committee on March 10.
The committee is resuming its study of Bill C-216, an act to amend the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Act (supply management).
With us today we again have the officials from the Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food and Global Affairs Canada, and, of course, our House of Commons legislative clerk to assist us during clause-by-clause consideration of the bill.
We will start to deal with Bill C-216 now.
Therefore, I will call clause 1.
Shall clause 1 carry? Is there any debate on this clause?
Mr. Savard-Tremblay, did you want to speak to this or were you raising your hand to vote?
View Judy A. Sgro Profile
Lib. (ON)
Thank you.
Ms. Gray.
View Judy A. Sgro Profile
Lib. (ON)
All right. Thank you very much.
Madam Clerk, would you please take a recorded vote on clause 1?
(Clause 1 agreed to: yeas 9; nays 2)
The Chair: Shall the title carry?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: On division.
The Chair: Shall the bill carry?
(Bill C-216 agreed to: yeas 9; nays 2)
The Chair: Shall the chair report the bill to the House?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: On division.
The Chair: Shall the committee order a reprint of the bill for the use of the House at report stage?
View Judy A. Sgro Profile
Lib. (ON)
Thank you very much, Émilie. I really appreciate that.
That completes the required votes on Bill C-216.
Madam Clerk, is there anything else on Bill C-216 that we need to do?
View Judy A. Sgro Profile
Lib. (ON)
I want to thank the witnesses for taking the time to come out this morning.
In particular, I want to thank the analysts, the interpreters and our clerks for getting us through every one of these meetings. We are now finished with Bill C-216.
We are now going to suspend and rejoin via an in camera session.
[Proceedings continue in camera]
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)
View Scott Simms Profile
Lib. (NL)
You're welcome.
I forgot to mention this at the beginning, but I want to remind everyone that if there are amendments later on in the package of amendments that you wish to withdraw, you can do that at any time. If you've put them forward, just let the clerk know that you wish to withdraw a particular amendment.
I say that because they haven't been deemed moved yet. Once I move it, it then it requires unanimous consent. In that particular example, I had declared that we were on CPC-11, so it was deemed moved. That's why we needed unanimous consent. However, if there is an amendment further along that you don't want to put forward, I suggest that you contact the clerk to have it withdrawn. You don't need unanimous consent.
That brings us to CPC-11.1.
Mr. Méla, I'm assuming we're going ahead to CPC-11.1.
View Scott Simms Profile
Lib. (NL)
Thank you.
We are now going to CPC-11.1.
In CPC-11.1, we had a great deal of conversation about it. It does amend the Broadcasting Act in many ways. The amendment proposes to amend part of the act related to licences. In this particular case they were talking about amendments to licences [Technical difficulty—Editor] they rendered necessary by other adopted amendments. I just want to read you something that is on page 771 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice. It says:
…an amendment is inadmissible if it proposes to amend a statute that is not before the committee or a section of the parent Act, unless the latter is specifically amended by a clause of the bill.
What we're doing here is talking about the parent act in the case of the Broadcasting Act, but in C-10 it doesn't discuss this particular way of amending. Therefore, I have to rule it inadmissible as it goes beyond the principle and scope of the bill that we agreed to on Bill C-10, which was accepted in the House at second reading.
View Scott Simms Profile
Lib. (NL)
I'm afraid not, and it's no reflection on your ability, sir.
View Scott Simms Profile
Lib. (NL)
Thank you very much, sir.
I just want everyone to understand how this vote goes. The clerk actually has a better way of explaining it than I do. She's very good at it.
Go ahead, Madam Clerk. No pressure.
View Tim Louis Profile
Lib. (ON)
I have a point of order.
Madam Clerk, can you just elaborate on that explanation? I just want to understand fully, because it's important.
Thank you.
View Scott Simms Profile
Lib. (NL)
Remember what I said earlier. If the decision is mostly nays and my decision is not sustained, we just go straight in the opposite direction, which is that we will consider the amendment.
The question again is whether my decision should be sustained.
Go ahead, Madam Clerk.
View Scott Simms Profile
Lib. (NL)
Yes, please.
(Ruling of the chair overturned: nays 7; yeas 4)
View Scott Simms Profile
Lib. (NL)
The ruling is not sustained, and off we go to CPC-11.1.
Does everybody understand where we are now? I don't want to move on with anybody misunderstanding what's happening. These things happen fast. We're charting new territory. Do not be afraid to jump in if you have a quick question.
Okay. We are now going to CPC-11.1, as the ruling was not sustained. Therefore, we go to a vote.
(Amendment negatived: nays 7; yeas 4 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
View Scott Simms Profile
Lib. (NL)
With the advice of the legislative clerk, I am moving to CPC-11.2. Is that correct, sir?
View Scott Simms Profile
Lib. (NL)
Thank you very much.
We are on amendment CPC-11.2. This may sound eerily familiar. It proposes to amend the part of the act related to licences yet again. In the House of Commons Procedure and Practice—it's the third edition I'm speaking of, from page 771—it says:
...an amendment is inadmissible if it proposes to amend a statute that is not before the committee or a section of the parent Act, unless the latter is specifically amended by a clause in the bill.
I mentioned this was eerily familiar because it is the same as before. However, since it is before us, I am compelled to do it.
Since the part is related to licences, we're talking about section 22 of the Broadcasting Act, which is not being amended by C-10. As I mentioned earlier with the same genuine understanding, it was not touched upon in C-10. We voted that on principle. Therefore, the committee would be exceeding the scope of the bill if we amended something in the act that was not addressed by C-10, and here we are doing an amendment that wasn't.
I really hope that was clear enough for everybody. I'm not sure it was but nevertheless—
View Scott Simms Profile
Lib. (NL)
All right. I accept that. That's fine.
Without even pausing, apparently there's a challenge to the ruling.
(Ruling of the chair overturned: nays 11; yeas 0)
View Scott Simms Profile
Lib. (NL)
We have 11 nays against the ruling. Okay. Table for one for this chair—I'm kidding.
We will move on shall we. Shall CPC-11.2 carry?
(Amendment negatived: nays 7; yeas 4 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
View Scott Simms Profile
Lib. (NL)
We are on LIB-9.1.
Brace yourselves. This may shock you all, but I have something to say.
View Scott Simms Profile
Lib. (NL)
I appreciate the eagerness. Don't get me wrong, but I feel for this particular democratic function that I should provide an explanation.
View Scott Simms Profile
Lib. (NL)
I understand, Mr. Genuis. I understand that. I know. These are strange times indeed. Sometimes I feel the same way you do. However, I feel like I must....
I'll make this brief, if that helps:
...an amendment is inadmissible if it proposes to amend a statute that is not before the committee or a section of the parent Act, unless the latter is specifically amended by a clause of the bill.
Again, this pertains to changes in the Broadcasting Act in section 22. Therefore, I cannot allow this to be admissible. I deem it to be inadmissible.
What say you?
View Scott Simms Profile
Lib. (NL)
I'm shocked.
(Ruling of the chair overturned: nays 11; yeas 0)
View Scott Simms Profile
Lib. (NL)
Okay. It's overturned. I'm sitting alone at the head of the [Technical difficulty—Editor].
View Scott Simms Profile
Lib. (NL)
I was starting to feel like I was in a North Korean cabinet meeting.
Nevertheless, Mr. Rayes, go ahead.
View Scott Simms Profile
Lib. (NL)
I'm [Technical difficulty—Editor]. That's a valid point. Yes, here we are in the North Atlantic.
That's not a point of order, I'm afraid. However, the generosity is well appreciated. It really is.
View Scott Simms Profile
Lib. (NL)
Do you have a point of order, Mr. Genuis?
View Scott Simms Profile
Lib. (NL)
I'm afraid we don't allow subamendments, sir. Orders from the House dictate that I cannot do that.
View Scott Simms Profile
Lib. (NL)
I'm afraid you can't do that, sir. We have strict orders from the House. Again, I mentioned to you earlier about dealing with the House.
Right now I have to go to the vote, as the challenge was done. Once I make a ruling like that and it's been challenged and overturned, I have to go straight to a vote.
View Scott Simms Profile
Lib. (NL)
I understand, Mr. Genuis.
What I'm going to do is consult with the legislative clerk. I said I would do it earlier, but I'll do it now.
I'm afraid that I have to go to this vote, because that's part of the rules as well. Obviously, you can't challenge on that particular.... Once the ruling takes place, and it's challenged and voted on, I have to go directly to that.
I will say this: Once that's completed, I will consult with the legislative clerk to discuss that.
What has happened here is that when a ruling is challenged on my admissibility, that's not discussed in the directions from the House. However, it's quite clear as to where we can go with amendments or any other subamendments to that.
What I'm going to do is this: We have to go to a vote, as was expected for LIB-9.1—
View Scott Simms Profile
Lib. (NL)
Mr. Genuis, no. I'm going to do this right now—
View Scott Simms Profile
Lib. (NL)
I'm already overdue on this vote, so I have to have LIB-9.1 voted on right now.
View Scott Simms Profile
Lib. (NL)
Mr. Genuis, to satisfy your concerns, how about I go to the legislative clerk right now?
View Scott Simms Profile
Lib. (NL)
Yes, only because you asked.
View Scott Simms Profile
Lib. (NL)
I'll be just one second. Can we suspend for just a few minutes, and I'll keep everyone on screen? You can go off screen, but listen for my voice when we come back, because I don't think it will be too long.
Thank you.
View Scott Simms Profile
Lib. (NL)
Welcome back, everybody.
Mr. Genuis, thank you for your intervention. As I suspected, yes, but I'll just further explain why it is we're doing this in the case of overturning a challenge on a ruling and not in the case of an subamendment that you're putting forward.
When it comes to the motion itself, the first part talks about the five-hour debate that has expired. That's fine. That's been satisfied. In the second part of the motion that came from the House, we have to go by the strict orders that were given to us, and I bring your attention, if you have it in front of you, to the last part of the sentence, “in turn, every question necessary for the disposal of the said stage of the bill shall be put forthwith and successively, without further debate or further amendment.”
What I did earlier is I ruled, a challenge was made and it was overturned, but these are regarding amendments that already exist. Either they were deemed moved by the Green Party or they were put forward when a challenge was made, but these are all amendments that were previously placed with us. Therefore, that applies, because there is nothing in this motion that considers options of motions that were already handed in to us.
What it does say, quite explicitly, is this at the end, again, “forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment”, which is what you are proposing, which I have to rule as out of order. In which case, I now have to go—
View Scott Simms Profile
Lib. (NL)
View Scott Simms Profile
Lib. (NL)
Hold on one second. I'm just providing clarification, which I think is what you wanted.
View Scott Simms Profile
Lib. (NL)
Here's what I'm going to do. Rather than engage in this further, how about I bring someone else in? Mr. Méla, perhaps you would like to shed some light on this.
What he's going to explain to you is the situation. You have a problem, obviously, with the motion that was dealt with in the House.
Mr. Méla, if you please—
View Scott Simms Profile
Lib. (NL)
View Scott Simms Profile
Lib. (NL)
I understand what you're saying. I think we get the gist of your argument.
Mr. Méla.
View Scott Simms Profile
Lib. (NL)
Mr. Genuis, wait one moment, please.
This is a clarification about the fact that your challenge lies with the House of Commons. It doesn't lie with this particular committee. That's what Mr. Méla is trying to say.
I cannot spend more time on this, as we have to get moving. I have explicit orders from the House to do this.
I'm sorry. I appreciate your argument, and I appreciate—
View Scott Simms Profile
Lib. (NL)
First of all, we can't raise our voices. I need to move on. We've just addressed now, three times, the particular problems that you have about this. We have to move on.
Folks, I'm asking the question—
View Scott Simms Profile
Lib. (NL)
Mr. Genuis, is there something new to bring to this?
View Scott Simms Profile
Lib. (NL)
Okay. I get your new argument.
View Scott Simms Profile
Lib. (NL)
Okay, Mr. Genuis. I'm going to allow Mr. Méla to deal with your point.
Mr. Méla, go ahead.
View Scott Simms Profile
Lib. (NL)
Mr. Genuis, hold on. You can't talk unless I recognize you, please.
I'm assuming that you want a point of clarification on what was just said.
View Scott Simms Profile
Lib. (NL)
Then may I humbly ask that you be very quick about it?
View Scott Simms Profile
Lib. (NL)
Mr. Genuis, I appreciate your comments, I truly do. I think maybe you want to bring it up with the House—you're certainly entitled to do that—but this is our interpretation of how we have to proceed based on the motion we have received from the House on this time allocation motion. I thank you for that.
We now go on to LIB-9.1.
Shall LIB-9.1 carry? Seeing no push-back, I declare LIB-9.1 carried.
(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Now we're moving on to clauses 14 to 17. There are no amendments, so I will call for the votes.
(Clauses 14 to 17 inclusive agreed to: yeas 7; nays 4)
View Scott Simms Profile
Lib. (NL)
View Scott Simms Profile
Lib. (NL)
View Scott Simms Profile
Lib. (NL)
Everyone, you have up to a five-minute break. I'll look for everyone's face to be back on screen for the reconvening. I ask that you please keep it within five minutes.
Therefore, we are now suspended.
View Scott Simms Profile
Lib. (NL)
Welcome back, everybody.
(On clause 18)
The Chair: We left off at clause 18, so we're starting with PV-26.
I need to say this about PV-26 before we proceed any further.
Bill C-10 amends the Broadcasting Act to provide for the Governor in Council to be able to review a decision made by the CRTC under section 9 of the act. The amendment expands this power to the orders that the CRTC may make under proposed section 9.1 of the act, which is not envisioned in the bill. Again, we go back to page 770 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, regarding an amendment being beyond the scope of a bill.
PV-26 expands the power of the Governor in Council to cabinet and that is beyond the scope of the bill. Therefore, I have to rule that PV-26 is inadmissible.
View Scott Simms Profile
Lib. (NL)
Okay.
Madam Clerk, please explain about the vote to sustain the decision of the chair. I think everybody now knows how to do this, but I think it bears repeating.
Thank you.
View Scott Simms Profile
Lib. (NL)
We now go to PV-26.
If PV-26 is adopted, NDP-13 cannot be moved as it is identical. If PV-26 is negatived, so is NDP-13 for the same reason.
If PV-26 is adopted, BQ-32 cannot be moved due to a line conflict. Essentially, if PV-26 is adopted, BQ-32 becomes problematic to adopt because it's based on older wording.
View Scott Simms Profile
Lib. (NL)
You have the floor, Mr. Champoux.
View Scott Simms Profile
Lib. (NL)
View Scott Simms Profile
Lib. (NL)
That is correct, yes. If PV-26 is negatived, we will vote on BQ-32.
View Scott Simms Profile
Lib. (NL)
Shall PV-26 carry?
(Amendment negatived: nays 10; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
View Scott Simms Profile
Lib. (NL)
As a result of that, I also have to negative NDP-13.
Now this may surprise you, Mr. Champoux, but we now vote on BQ-32.
(Amendment negatived: nays 9; yeas 2 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(Clause 18 agreed to: yeas 9; nays 2)
(Clause 19 agreed to: yeas 7; nays 4)
(On clause 20)
The Chair: We're going to start with BQ-33, which was put forward by Monsieur Champoux.
(Amendment negatived: nays 9; yeas 2 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
View Scott Simms Profile
Lib. (NL)
That brings us to BQ-34, which was moved by Mr. Champoux.
(Amendment negatived: nays 9; yeas 2 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(Clause 20 agreed to: yeas 7, nays 4)
(On clause 21)
View Scott Simms Profile
Lib. (NL)
We're starting with G-15, which was brought forward by Madam Dabrusin.
(Amendment agreed to: yeas 7; nays 4 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(Clause 21 as amended agreed to: yeas 7; nays 4)
View Scott Simms Profile
Lib. (NL)
View Julie Dabrusin Profile
Lib. (ON)
View Scott Simms Profile
Lib. (NL)
Madam Clerk, go ahead—
View Julie Dabrusin Profile
Lib. (ON)
It sounds like they were all a yes, Mr. Chair.
View Scott Simms Profile
Lib. (NL)
I'm sorry. They were all yes. I'm so used to someone opposing, I just can't get over the fact that everyone is unanimous. That's no reflection on you. That's just my abilities.
(Clause 22 agreed to)
The Chair: I was alone at the head of the table for so long.
View Scott Simms Profile
Lib. (NL)
Mr. Rayes, you have the floor.
View Scott Simms Profile
Lib. (NL)
I just hadn't seen it in a while.
Mr. Rayes, your point is taken.
(On clause 23)
View Scott Simms Profile
Lib. (NL)
If you'll look at your hymn book, you'll see that G-16 is listed, but that was already carried. It was consequential to G-9. Therefore, we're going to just move on from there, because we're [Technical difficulty—Editor] the consequences of the G-9 vote to G-16, so you can take that one out.
That brings us to BQ-35(N). This amends the Broadcasting Act. It provides for a specific regime for the commission to impose a penalty to the corporation, CBC, under the proposed section 34.99. The circumstances cannot be done without holding a public hearing. That's basically what the amendment's saying.
The amendment aims at applying the same unique regime to a person carrying on a broadcasting undertaking, even though it's a different regime, and it does not contemplate a public hearing as proposed in the bill under proposed section 34.92, and I'm afraid that this goes beyond the principle and scope of the bill.
We are applying one to one, and you want to expand it to apply to the other. It's not envisioned within C-10. Therefore, I have to rule that it is, according to page 770 of the House of Commons Procedure and Practice, inadmissible for the purposes of the principle and scope of Bill C-10.
View Scott Simms Profile
Lib. (NL)
I'm not sure if “ouch” comprises a challenge or not.
It's just a declaration of your pain. Is that right, Mr. Champoux?
View Scott Simms Profile
Lib. (NL)
It's duly noted in Hansard forever.
Let's move along.
We now go to NDP-14, put forward by Ms. McPherson. There is just one thing to note about this: If NDP-14 is adopted, BQ-36 cannot be moved, simply because they're identical, as two great minds think alike. If NDP-14 is negatived, so is BQ-36, of course, which follows the same logic that I just stated. Those two amendments, NDP-14 and BQ-36, are linked, but technically, officially, we are now voting on NDP-14.
(Amendment agreed to: yeas 7; nays 4 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Congratulations to both of you.
This brings us to the end of clause 23.
(Clause 23 as amended agreed to: yeas 7; nays 4)
(Clause 24 agreed to: yeas 7; nays 4)
(On clause 25)
View Scott Simms Profile
Lib. (NL)
We're on amendment PV-26.1.
For those watching us at home, PV is Parti vert, the Green Party. This has been submitted by the Green Party, by Mr. Manly.
Shall PV 26.1 carry?
(Amendment negatived: nays 9; yeas 2 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: That brings me to amendment CPC-12.
In Bill C-10, it amends section 46 of the Broadcasting—
View Scott Simms Profile
Lib. (NL)
View Scott Simms Profile
Lib. (NL)
Based on the ruling that was deemed earlier that rules out CPC-12.
Thank you very much for that.
That brings me to the end of clause 25.
(Clause 25 agreed to: yeas 7; nays 4)
(Clause 26 agreed to: yeas 7; nays 4)
View Scott Simms Profile
Lib. (NL)
Next is the proposal for new clause 26.1, in amendment CPC-13.
The amendment amends subsection 71(3) of the act, which is not amended by the bill. In particular, we're talking about the corporation, CBC/Radio-Canada, and whether or not it is compelled to provide new information to its report to Parliament.
House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, on page 771, states, “an amendment is inadmissible if it proposes to amend a statute that is not before the committee or a section of the parent Act”—the Broadcasting Act—“unless the latter is specifically amended by a clause of the bill”.
The bill goes slightly beyond its reach, meaning that by saying yes at second reading to Bill C-10, we've accepted its principle, but we've also accepted the scope of the bill. This particular measure does go beyond the scope of the bill. Therefore, I have to rule that CPC-13 is inadmissible.
That brings us to clause 27.
(Clauses 27 and 28 agreed to: yeas 7; nays 4)
The Chair: Folks, could I just get everyone's attention for a moment? One of the things we tend to do in clause-by-clause, similar to this, is that if we have several clauses in a row, we can lump them together into one vote.
Right now, I have clause 29, 30, 31 and 32 with no proposed amendments from our amendment package or from PV either. We can lump them together into one vote, but to do that I would need unanimous consent. This will also come up again later on in the bill. I have not done it yet, but it just occurred to me that it can be done. I will put it in front of the committee. Clauses 29 to 32 would be voted on at once.
Do I have unanimous consent to proceed that way?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
(Clauses 29 to 32 inclusive agreed to: yeas 7, nays 4)
(On clause 33)
View Scott Simms Profile
Lib. (NL)
That brings us to clause 33. Within the package that you have, we have G-17, as put forward by Mr. Louis.
View Scott Simms Profile
Lib. (NL)
Yes, that's good. Don't get me wrong. Sometimes we go on autopilot a little too long and then, all of a sudden, something like this happens.
(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(Clause 33 as amended agreed to: yeas 7; nays 4)
The Chair: That brings us to the new clause 33.1. We now go to G-18, as put forward by Mr. Louis. Shall G-18 carry?
(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(Clauses 34 to 46 inclusive agreed to: yeas 7; nays 4)
View Scott Simms Profile
Lib. (NL)
That brings us to a proposal for new clause 46.1. For clause 46.1, just to break a little bit of the monotony of the straight clauses, we have before us, from Mr. Manley, amendment PV-27(N).
(Amendment negatived: nays 9; yeas 2 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
View Scott Simms Profile
Lib. (NL)
Okay, folks, that brings us to BQ-37.
Mr. Champoux, you will be honoured to know that yours will be the last amendment.
(Amendment agreed to: yeas 6; nays 5 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
View Scott Simms Profile
Lib. (NL)
That brings us to the end of that.
That's quite a dismount, Mr. Champoux.
Shall clause 47 as amended carry?
View Scott Simms Profile
Lib. (NL)
That's right. You have my apologies. I was just so enthusiastic for Mr. Champoux. I can't even begin to describe how disorienting it was. I forgot where I was in the place.
View Scott Simms Profile
Lib. (NL)
I know. I get that a lot.
Nevertheless, let me rephrase that. I'll back up for just a moment, everyone.
Shall clause 47 carry?
(Clause 47 agreed to: yeas 7; nays 4)
Results: 1 - 100 of 59288 | Page: 1 of 593

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

For more data options, please see Open Data