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 150000
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 Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay Profile
BQ (QC)
I was raising my hand to vote, Madam Chair.
View Judy A. Sgro Profile
Lib. (ON)
Thank you.
Ms. Gray.
View Tracy Gray Profile
CPC (BC)
I would request a recorded vote, Madam Chair.
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?
Émilie Thivierge
View Émilie Thivierge Profile
Émilie Thivierge
2021-06-14 11:11
Madam Chair, I'm sorry to interrupt.
Since there were no amendments adopted, the committee doesn't need to order a reprint of the bill.
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?
Émilie Thivierge
View Émilie Thivierge Profile
Émilie Thivierge
2021-06-14 11:11
No, Madam Chair.
We just need to suspend to go to the in camera part of the meeting.
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 Garnett Genuis Profile
CPC (AB)
Mr. Chair, just a point of order.
I wasn't here for the last consideration of this. I guess I'm a bit confused about one point. Normally, committees are masters of their own domain. They set their own rules. We're operating now, though, under a framework of a House order, where the committee is constrained in terms of what it can do.
In the past, when committees have operated under a House order around time allocation on amendments, they have in every case abided by the House order in terms of not allowing amendments to be moved. But we're in a situation now where the committee has overruled your ruling on that and is arguably defying a House order. I'm not sure if the committee can do that, overrule a House order.
You've just told us a number of things we have to do vis-à-vis the House order. If members of the committee have decided through a challenge to the chair that they're not going to abide by the House order, it raises lots of questions. One of them is, why does the committee have to adhere to any of the House orders? I guess that's what—
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 Garnett Genuis Profile
CPC (AB)
Okay, Mr. Chair, but—
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 Garnett Genuis Profile
CPC (AB)
I have just a follow-up point of order, then.
View Garnett Genuis Profile
CPC (AB)
From what I understand in terms of the ground rules you've laid out at the beginning, the committee can, by majority, at any point overrule those ground rules if they challenge the chair. If that puts us at odds with the House order—again, we're already potentially at odds with the House order—you're saying those are arguments that can be made or not made in the House, but that they can't be made here, essentially, because you have to adhere to challenges, whatever they say.
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?
Philippe Méla
View Philippe Méla Profile
Philippe Méla
2021-06-11 13:13
Mr. Chair, clause 13 was not amended. It was just—
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 Alain Rayes Profile
CPC (QC)
Mr. Chair, on a point of order.
View Scott Simms Profile
Lib. (NL)
You have the floor, Mr. Rayes.
View Alain Rayes Profile
CPC (QC)
I would like to know if it is possible to withdraw amendment CPC‑11, so that it will not be voted on. It is an amendment that I had tabled. I do not want to move a subamendment; I just want to know if I can withdraw it. I may need unanimous consent to do that.
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 Alain Rayes Profile
CPC (QC)
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.
Philippe Méla
View Philippe Méla Profile
Philippe Méla
2021-06-11 13:16
Yes, sir.
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 Garnett Genuis Profile
CPC (AB)
Mr. Chair, I would like to challenge your ruling.
If I correctly understand the rules, they don't allow me to make arguments for that challenge.
View Scott Simms Profile
Lib. (NL)
I'm afraid not, and it's no reflection on your ability, sir.
View Garnett Genuis Profile
CPC (AB)
My challenge is no reflection on yours, Mr. Chair.
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.
Aimée Belmore
View Aimée Belmore Profile
Aimée Belmore
2021-06-11 13:18
The question is this: Shall the ruling of the chair be sustained?
If you vote yea, you agree with the chair and the ruling will be sustained. The amendment would be, I believe, outside the scope or inadmissible. It would sustain the chair's ruling.
If you vote nay, then you'll be able to vote on this amendment.
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.
Aimée Belmore
View Aimée Belmore Profile
Aimée Belmore
2021-06-11 13:18
Of course.
Shall the chair's decision be sustained? If you agree, you say yes, and there will be no vote on this amendment. If the question is “Shall the chair's decision be sustained?” and you vote nay, then we'll proceed with a vote on this amendment.
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.
Aimée Belmore
View Aimée Belmore Profile
Aimée Belmore
2021-06-11 13:19
Is the question clearly understood?
View Alain Rayes Profile
CPC (QC)
No. Yes, in fact, we did understand well, but I want to vote against it.
Aimée Belmore
View Aimée Belmore Profile
Aimée Belmore
2021-06-11 13:19
Thank you, sir.
Sir, did you want me to proceed with the vote?
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?
Philippe Méla
View Philippe Méla Profile
Philippe Méla
2021-06-11 13:22
Yes, it is.
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 Garnett Genuis Profile
CPC (AB)
It was clear, but not convincing. I'm challenging the chair.
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.
Results: 1 - 60 of 150000 | Page: 1 of 2500

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
>
>|
Show both languages
Refine Your Search
Export As: XML CSV RSS

For more data options, please see Open Data