Evidence of meeting #116 for Canadian Heritage in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was funding.
A video is available from Parliament.
5:45 p.m.
Conservative
The Vice-Chair Conservative Kevin Waugh
Why?
It's because we have members leaving here. I as well have to catch a plane right away.
5:45 p.m.
Conservative
The Vice-Chair Conservative Kevin Waugh
I've given you 15 extra minutes. I'm going to suspend this meeting for now. We'll suspend it and come back on April 30.
[The meeting was suspended at 5:46 p.m., Thursday, April 18]
[The meeting resumed at 4:07, Tuesday, April 30]
4:05 p.m.
Conservative
The Vice-Chair Conservative Kevin Waugh
Order.
Good afternoon. We're resuming meeting number 116 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, which was suspended on Thursday, April 18.
First off is avoiding audio feedback.
Before we begin today, I would like to remind all members and other meeting participants in this room of the following important preventive measures.
To prevent disruptive and potentially harmful audio feedback incidents that can cause injuries, all in-person participants are reminded to keep their earpieces away from the microphones at all times. As indicated in the communiqué from the Speaker to all members on the morning of Monday, April 29, the following measures have been taken to help prevent audio feedback incidents.
First, all earpieces have been replaced by a model that greatly reduces the probability of audio feedback. The new earpieces in front of you are black in colour, whereas the former earpieces were grey. Please use only the approved black earpiece.
By default, all unused earpieces will be unplugged at the start of the meeting.
When you are not using your earpiece, please place it face down on the middle of the sticker for this purpose that you will find on the table, as indicated. Please consult these cards on the table for guidelines to prevent audio feedback incidents.
The room layout, as you've noticed, is quite a bit different. There's an increased distance between the microphones to reduce the chance of feedback.
These measures are in place so that we can conduct our business without interruption and protect the health and safety of all participants, including the interpreters. Again, thank you for your co-operation.
Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format, and I would like to make a few comments for the benefit of members here today.
As always, please wait until I recognize you before speaking.
We're resuming the debate on Mr. Noormohamed's motion, starting with the amendment moved by Mr. Champoux. However, as you may or may not know.... I'm just going to read this:
“That, notwithstanding the motion adopted by the committee on Thursday, February 1, 2024, with respect to the review of Bill C-316, the committee schedule”—and this is a change—“a minimum of three meetings with witnesses on April 18, April 30”—which is today—“and May 2”—which is Thursday—“respectively, that the deadline for amendments be no earlier than April 30, 2024”—which is today—“and the committee begin clause-by-clause consideration no earlier than May 7, 2024.”
On May 7, of course, I believe Ms. Tait from the CBC is coming. That's a week from today.
If the amendment is, as we said, inadmissible, I think, Mr. Noormohamed, you've made those changes.
Is there any discussion on this?
Okay, we're going to move on. I was going to actually rule the motion out of order because of the dates that you first proposed, especially April 18 and so on.
I think the changes are required. We have the three meetings, and the third and final meeting would be this Thursday.
Do we all agree with these changes, then, going forward?
Go ahead, Mrs. Thomas.
4:10 p.m.
Conservative
Rachael Thomas Conservative Lethbridge, AB
I'm sorry. I just want to clarify, then.
You're basically ruling this entire thing out of order. Is that correct?
4:10 p.m.
Conservative
The Vice-Chair Conservative Kevin Waugh
I came in here today.... Nobody knew this, but my interpretation of this was that it was out of order because of the dates. Then we would proceed from there.
We have a number of witnesses standing today by who would come forward. I was going to have the clerk, along with the analysts.... We were going to shut it down for a minute or two to do the audio checks, and then we would do the five presentations in front of us.
Yes, I was going to rule it out of order.
All right? Are we all in agreement with that?
4:10 p.m.
Some hon. members
Agreed.
4:10 p.m.
The Chair
If you don't mind, I would like to suspend, then, for a maximum of two minutes. We have five people online, and we need to hear what they have to say on Bill C-316.
4:10 p.m.
Conservative
The Vice-Chair Conservative Kevin Waugh
We have done some sound checks, but I think we just want to make sure that our guests are with us.
4:10 p.m.
Liberal
Taleeb Noormohamed Liberal Vancouver Granville, BC
I have a point of order, Chair. Now that have some clarity on this—and as I mentioned, I wish to withdraw the motion anyway—can we get clarity in terms of scheduling so that we know exactly what is happening in respect of Bill C-316 so that we can then move forward? Before we get to this, it's just to know where we are in terms of the next meetings, what the timing looks like, etc. Maybe the clerk can just help us out with that.
4:10 p.m.
Conservative
The Vice-Chair Conservative Kevin Waugh
I read earlier today that we're going to do the second of three meetings, and then Thursday will be the third of three meetings. You agreed to that.
4:10 p.m.
Conservative
4:10 p.m.
Liberal
Taleeb Noormohamed Liberal Vancouver Granville, BC
There are four meetings, which is why that original amendment was in place. It was to bring it to three.
April 30th, 2024 / 4:10 p.m.
The Clerk
In the original motion from February, we had four meetings with witnesses and one for clause-by-clause study of Bill C-316 and another meeting with witnesses on May 2. May 7 would be with the CBC and May 9 would be with witnesses for Bill C-316. Then, following the break week, we would do clause-by-clause study on May 21, and then the committee would just need to confirm what date they would like to have as the deadline for amendments.
4:10 p.m.
Liberal
Taleeb Noormohamed Liberal Vancouver Granville, BC
This is not a point of order.
Given where we are at, I don't want to put a motion forward. I'm just curious: Is the will of the committee to do three meetings or four? If it's three, and everybody seems to think it's three, maybe we could just do three and find a way to get done with it. If we want to do four, that's fine—that's what's there—but I don't know what the will of the group is. I'm putting this out there more as a friendly question than as anything structured.
4:10 p.m.
Conservative
The Vice-Chair Conservative Kevin Waugh
Is there any discussion on whether to have three meetings or four ? Well, there were four to begin with.
Mr. Champoux, go ahead.
4:15 p.m.
Bloc
Martin Champoux Bloc Drummond, QC
Mr. Chair, personally, I absolutely agree that we should stick with the original motion, which proposed four meetings. We would like to hear certain witnesses on the subject. In fact, we would even like to hear more. We will accept as many meetings as we can in our very busy spring agenda.
I therefore propose four meetings.
4:15 p.m.
Conservative
The Vice-Chair Conservative Kevin Waugh
Mrs. Thomas, you were without your earpiece. Mr. Champoux recommended four meetings for sure, maybe more.
Mrs. Thomas, go ahead.
4:15 p.m.
Conservative
Rachael Thomas Conservative Lethbridge, AB
I understand. Thank you.
Chair, I think it's really clear. There's a unanimous consent motion that was already moved to say that we're doing four meetings. We have witnesses here waiting to testify. Unless someone wants to move a formal motion, I think discussion is done.
4:15 p.m.
Conservative
The Vice-Chair Conservative Kevin Waugh
I agree. We're fine, so we'll do the four meetings.
I'm sorry, Ms. Ashton. I didn't see your hand up, but go ahead.
4:15 p.m.
NDP
Niki Ashton NDP Churchill—Keewatinook Aski, MB
It's all good. I just want to put on the record that, as before, I support having three meetings. I think it's critical to hear the witnesses we have scheduled and to move this legislation back into the House as soon as possible.
4:15 p.m.
Conservative
The Vice-Chair Conservative Kevin Waugh
You really haven't added three or four meetings, but I'm going to say four, as we did, so this will be the second of four. Thursday will be the third of four, and then when we come back on May 9, it will be the fourth of four meetings to deal with Bill C-316. Is that clear?
Does the committee want to choose the deadline for amendments? Does the committee want to deal with a date for amendments?
Go ahead, Mr. Champoux.
4:15 p.m.
Bloc
Martin Champoux Bloc Drummond, QC
Mr. Chair, is the deadline for amendments stated in the motion that we've adopted? The schedule has changed in recent weeks. If the last meeting with witnesses is held on May 9, I wonder if committee members would agree to make May 10 the deadline. I realize that leaves us only 24 hours after hearing final witnesses, but I think that will give us an opportunity to prepare our amendments in the meantime.
Personally, I propose that the deadline be set at May 10 because that leaves the support team, the clerk and the legislative teams time to work on the amendments we'll have introduced. I don't think the parliamentary break week will be too much for them. If we make May 10 the deadline, that will leave them time, and we'd be returning for the clause-by-clause on May 21.
4:15 p.m.
Conservative
The Vice-Chair Conservative Kevin Waugh
Are there any other thoughts? The week of May 13 is a constituency week, and that's why Mr. Champoux has suggested we come back on Tuesday, May 21. Is there any other conversation around this?
Go ahead, Mr. Noormohamed.