Committee
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Add search criteria
Results: 1 - 30 of 150000
View Scott Simms Profile
Lib. (NL)
I call the meeting to order.
Welcome back, everybody. Happy Monday to all.
There are a couple of very important points I want to start with before we get into the gist of what we're doing today.
Welcome to meeting number 29 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage.
Pursuant to the order of reference of Tuesday, February 16, the committee resumes clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-10, an act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other acts.
Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format, which we certainly are used to by now. I guess it's been over a year. I think we can call it that. As you know, there are a couple of rules to point out to everybody. They're not official rules in the book, but nevertheless they help us in our committee.
First, try to avoid talking over each other. If you want to get my attention, you know how to do it on the side here. Just raise your hand electronically. If you're not hearing interpretation or you're not getting the volume or you're not hearing the speaker, you can do that, or just wave your hand to get my attention if something technical goes wrong. If that happens, please get my attention, and obviously we'll try to fix it.
We've had some technical difficulties from the Ottawa side of things. I've had a few difficulties of my own with sound. I don't want to alert the IT people in Ottawa. This is a thing that's originating from my office here in Grand Falls-Windsor in Newfoundland and Labrador.
We have to address something that is extremely important to this committee, and we have to do it, I think, right away. It won't take too long, but we really have to wish a happy birthday to the member for Drummond, Mr. Champoux.
Happy birthday, Mr. Champoux.
View Martin Champoux Profile
BQ (QC)
View Martin Champoux Profile
2021-05-03 11:05
Thank you very much.
View Anthony Housefather Profile
Lib. (QC)
Is it your 35th birthday today, Mr. Champoux? x
View Martin Champoux Profile
BQ (QC)
View Martin Champoux Profile
2021-05-03 11:05
No, it's my 34th.x
View Scott Simms Profile
Lib. (NL)
Okay, okay, okay.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
The Chair: Happy birthday again, sir.
(On clause 7)
View Scott Simms Profile
Lib. (NL)
Now, on Bill C-10, we last dealt with amendment G-10 and we're now going to deal with amendment G-11. There is just a quick note about G-11 that I want to bring to everybody's attention. If G-11 is adopted, amendment BQ-22 cannot be moved due to a line conflict.
I'll go to the speakers list, starting with Ms. Dabrusin.
View Julie Dabrusin Profile
Lib. (ON)
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I am moving amendment G-11. This builds on the ownership clauses that we were working on earlier, and it would allow the CRTC to obtain ownership information from all types of undertakings. Bill C-10 as it was originally drafted didn't account for corporate structures such as co-operative trusts or partnerships, so this would allow for that broader ability to take into account different corporate structures.
View Scott Simms Profile
Lib. (NL)
View Rachael Harder Profile
CPC (AB)
Thank you, Chair.
Chair, I actually want to move a dilatory motion that we would—
View Scott Simms Profile
Lib. (NL)
Ms. Harder, I'm sorry to interrupt. I'll be just one second.
View Scott Simms Profile
Lib. (NL)
I have to deal with amendment G-11 first because it was just moved by Ms. Dabrusin.
View Rachael Harder Profile
CPC (AB)
View Scott Simms Profile
Lib. (NL)
However, I'll keep your name up there, because once we deal with G-11, then we can discuss....You're dealing with a motion that has nothing to do with G-11, correct?
View Rachael Harder Profile
CPC (AB)
I understand that, yes. Once G-11 has been dealt with, would you like me to raise my hand again, or would you like to just...?
View Scott Simms Profile
Lib. (NL)
You can raise your hand or I'll circle back to you. Is that okay?
View Rachael Harder Profile
CPC (AB)
Thank you.
View Scott Simms Profile
Lib. (NL)
On amendment G-11, I'll go to Mr. Rayes.
View Alain Rayes Profile
CPC (QC)
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'd like the experts among us to explain the impact of this amendment.
View Scott Simms Profile
Lib. (NL)
Drew Olsen
View Drew Olsen Profile
Drew Olsen
2021-05-03 11:07
Thank you. Thank you for the question, Mr. Rayes.
The current wording in Bill C-10 would have allowed the CRTC to obtain ownership information related to corporations that hold licences, but there are some ownership structures out there that are not corporations, such as partnerships and trusts, so we are just trying to make sure this doesn't unintentionally limit the CRTC's ability to get ownership information from licensees that may not be corporations.
View Scott Simms Profile
Lib. (NL)
Is there any further discussion on G-11?
Seeing none, we'll go to a vote.
(Amendment agreed to: yeas 7; nays 4 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: As G-11 is now adopted, BQ-22 cannot be moved because of a line conflict.
Ms. Harder, you have the floor.
View Rachael Harder Profile
CPC (AB)
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I appreciate that.
I have a quick question before moving on to the motion that I wish to move.
On Friday, when we were in the midst of debate on the motion that was on the floor at that time, one of the members of the committee, Ms. Dabrusin, raised her hand. She put forward a dilatory motion that brought debate to an end. At that point in time, you said that because it was a dilatory motion, it superseded debate, and all other hands that were raised were not called upon. Just a moment ago I attempted to move another dilatory motion, and I was told the motion at hand needed to be taken care of first.
I'm wondering why on Friday a dilatory motion took precedence, but today it doesn't.
View Scott Simms Profile
Lib. (NL)
It's for the simple reason that we had started the debate. Obviously we had commenced debate on that one, so things had to shut down and we had to dispense with it.
Are you saying that you have a dilatory motion now?
View Rachael Harder Profile
CPC (AB)
That's correct. Just a moment ago I indicated to you that I intended to bring forward a dilatory motion.
View Rachael Harder Profile
CPC (AB)
You commented that G-11 needed to be taken care of first before you could hear from me. However, on Friday you gave the dilatory motion precedence, so I'm wondering why those two rulings are incongruent.
View Scott Simms Profile
Lib. (NL)
I don't know. That's a good question. I'm going to talk to the clerk about that and see if it was done by mistake.
Nevertheless, you can certainly raise it. Do you want to do your dilatory motion now or do you want a ruling on that?
View Rachael Harder Profile
CPC (AB)
You can confer with the clerk, but I'm happy to move forward with my dilatory motion.
View Scott Simms Profile
Lib. (NL)
Okay. I'll do the clerk thing first, and then I'll come back to you.
Results: 1 - 30 of 150000 | Page: 1 of 5000

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