Evidence of meeting #6 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 support.
A recording is available from Parliament.
5:30 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Hedy Fry
Thank you.
Ms. Thomas, we don't have a lot of time. I would like us to finish this today before we adjourn.
Mr. Champoux, would you accept...?
Look, I'm going to call the vote on Mr. Champoux's amendment. All right?
5:30 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Hedy Fry
No, Ms. Barron. Please wait one minute. We're just counting the votes.
(Amendment agreed to)
We have very little time, Ms. Barron, and Mr. Housefather was making....
Can I hear your subamendment to the amended motion, please?
5:30 p.m.
NDP
Lisa Marie Barron NDP Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC
Thank you, Chair.
As somebody who is filling in for another member right now, I definitely don't want to get us off track.
It was to make the motion more specific. The amendment that I was suggesting states that the motion should say precisely “and that the Minister of Heritage and his department be invited to testify as part of this study.”
5:30 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Hedy Fry
You're asking for the minister to appear for this two-meeting study. Is that right?
5:35 p.m.
NDP
Lisa Marie Barron NDP Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC
Yes, I want to make it more specific to see if we can have the minister respond to the specifics that were stated in that subamendment.
5:35 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Hedy Fry
That does not seem to change the intent of the motion, so I will accept it.
I notice that Lisa has her hand up. Let's do this, because we have to leave this place soon.
Lisa is first, then Anthony, and Ms. Thomas if she wants to weigh in very quickly.
5:35 p.m.
Liberal
Lisa Hepfner Liberal Hamilton Mountain, ON
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I would say that I agree with my colleague Mr. Housefather that the motion would change the intent of the motion. If the intent of this motion is to study online harms, it has nothing to do with how quickly anything has been implemented in the heritage department.
That's my two cents. I think it does change the intent of the motion.
5:35 p.m.
Liberal
Anthony Housefather Liberal Mount Royal, QC
Thanks so much, Hedy.
I just want to echo that. The motion that Ms. Thomas put forward is a neutral motion. It basically says we're studying one component of what would be online harms, which relates to the exploitation of children, and illegal.... That doesn't relate to when a bill would or would not be tabled, which is much broader than the scope of this motion.
I think it would be a receivable amendment if you said we want to invite the Minister of Heritage to testify, on the motion, but not the way it was worded.
5:35 p.m.
Liberal
Anthony Housefather Liberal Mount Royal, QC
I think it creates a non-neutral motion, and I don't support it.
If it just wanted the minister to testify, that would be one thing, but the way it was worded, no.
5:35 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Hedy Fry
I thought she was asking for the minister to testify and nothing more. I guess I was mistaken.
Ms. Barron, I think we should call the question, if no one has anything to say.
Those in favour of Ms. Barron's subamendment—
5:35 p.m.
Liberal
Chris Bittle Liberal St. Catharines, ON
I'd like to echo what Anthony has contributed on this point.
I know that the honourable member is new—as she was introduced—but to my understanding, having been on one or two committee studies over my few years, the minister typically gets invited. I don't really understand the nature of this subamendment except to ratchet up the tension in this committee. It doesn't achieve the objectives. The committee is going to invite the minister, whether the subamendment is here; I think we have several motions on the floor where the minister is coming to appear anyway. He will eventually get a frequent flyer card at this motion...so I really don't understand the intention of this except the little dig at the end.
Again, the committee is always welcome to invite the minister. It's something that we can always keep doing.
Madam Chair, I see that Ms. Barron's hand is up. My hand will go right back up—for real; I can't put up my virtual hand.
Let Ms. Barron speak and I'll respond.
5:35 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Hedy Fry
I will let Ms. Barron speak, as the chair.
Ms. Barron, I think you're getting the gist that asking for the minister to attend is something this committee does anyway. We nearly always say, “Can the minister come and tell us what he thinks?” If you intended to change, as Mr. Housefather is suggesting, the whole intent of the motion, I could not allow it to even be voted on, because it would be out of order.
Do you want to clarify very quickly? We have only six minutes.
5:35 p.m.
NDP
Lisa Marie Barron NDP Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC
Yes. Thank you, Chair. I will speak very quickly.
I appreciate the comments made. I take those suggestions very much to heart here. The intention is to have the minister attend—more specifically, to be invited to testify as part of this study. The ultimate intention was for that.
5:35 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Hedy Fry
That's what I thought your intention was.
Can I now call the question, please?
Those in favour of—
5:35 p.m.
Liberal
Michael Coteau Liberal Don Valley East, ON
Can you just tell us what we're actually voting on? Is it the amendment, or have you ruled it out of order?
5:35 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Hedy Fry
No, no. Ms. Barron has removed it, because she intended it to ask the minister to appear. What she's suggesting is that we add it in the motion that we ask the minister to appear. That's really what we're voting on.