Evidence of meeting #93 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 cbc.
A recording is available from Parliament.
11:15 a.m.
The Clerk
In the end, it is the chair's ruling. My advice was that the chair can determine if the additional information raises a completely different question or if it is irrelevant to the main motion. Then it would be out of order.
11:15 a.m.
Bloc
Martin Champoux Bloc Drummond, QC
Madam Chair, I would like to know something out of curiosity. Am I to understand that your verdict is that the proposed amendment, which suggests expanding to a large extent the scope of the motion proposed by Ms. Thomas, is consistent with the spirit of this motion?
As I read it, the purpose of Ms. Thomas' motion is to question the CBC about a memo that was sent to journalists in the newsroom. The scope of the motion seems to me to be quite limited and focused. However, the proposed amendment suggests conducting a broader study on journalistic independence and disinformation. That seems to me to be a slightly different topic from what is understood in the motion on the table.
I am listening to your ruling and I will respect it, of course.
11:20 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Hedy Fry
Thank you.
My reasoning is simply that in her motion, Mrs. Thomas doesn't only ask for the CBC to be summoned. She also wants to invite the ombudsman “to appear for a minimum of 2 hours to address the CBC's position on Journalistic Standards and Practices.” Mr. Julian's amendment expands journalistic standards and practices, and that's exactly what he is trying to do, so I think it is in order.
Thank you.
Mrs. Thomas, have you finished your statement?
11:20 a.m.
Conservative
Rachael Thomas Conservative Lethbridge, AB
Madam Chair, on that point, I just would bring to your attention that the motion I moved has only to do with the CBC. It simply names three individuals from within the CBC who should be brought forward to this committee. It is within the jurisdiction of this committee to hold the CBC to account because it is a public broadcaster under the mandate of the heritage minister.
Peter Julian's amendment moves away from the CBC and in fact strikes from the record the invitation to bring Catherine Tait, the head of the CBC. His amendment actually moves into the private sphere that this committee actually doesn't have jurisdiction over, as it is pertaining to the news coverage of Google and Meta.
I would contend, respectfully, that the motion has in fact been changed quite substantially by this amendment.
11:20 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Hedy Fry
Thank you.
My ruling stands, however. Are you finished speaking to that? Can I go to Mr. Waugh?
11:20 a.m.
Conservative
11:20 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Hedy Fry
Please, Clerk, call the question.
(Ruling of the chair sustained: yeas 6; nays 4)
Thank you very much.
Ms. Thomas, would you have any further comments on Mr. Julian's amendment?
You do.
Go ahead.
11:20 a.m.
Conservative
Rachael Thomas Conservative Lethbridge, AB
Thank you, Chair.
I have a question for further clarification, then, for the chair, and I suppose that perhaps we could consult with the clerk.
In Mr. Julian's amendment, he uses the word “subpoena” and says, “That the committee subpoena Rachel Curran”. I am wondering if, according to the Standing Orders, this committee does have the power to subpoena a witness.
11:20 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Hedy Fry
Yes, we do, if the witness lives in Canada, as far as I'm concerned, and is a Canadian.
11:20 a.m.
A voice
[Inaudible—Editor] means summons.
11:20 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Hedy Fry
I'm sorry. Yes. It's not “subpoena” but “summon”, Peter, just for your information.
I think you understood what was meant.
11:20 a.m.
Conservative
Rachael Thomas Conservative Lethbridge, AB
Thank you. The amendment does read “subpoena”, so I am asking a question having to do with this exact language. I understand that this committee has the ability to “summon”. That's not the word used in this amendment, so my question is this. “Subpoena” has a legal framework attached to it: Does this committee have the power to subpoena Rachel Curran?
11:20 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Hedy Fry
Mr. Julian, obviously Ms. Thomas is debating or arguing that the term “summon” should be used instead of “subpoena”—
11:20 a.m.
Liberal
11:20 a.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC
I agree with Ms. Thomas and I accept her offering, as a friendly amendment, “to summon”.
11:20 a.m.
Conservative
Rachael Thomas Conservative Lethbridge, AB
Madam Chair, that's actually out of order. I wasn't asking for Mr. Julian to weigh in, nor am I offering a subamendment, to be clear. I'm simply asking for the chair of this committee to make a determination as to whether or not we have the power to subpoena a witness.
Does this committee have the power to subpoena a witness?
11:25 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Hedy Fry
I actually have seen committees subpoena a witness before in extreme circumstances. I think the power to subpoena is here with committees on specific and extenuating circumstances, but in this instance, I did not think Mr. Julian meant subpoena when I read it, because of the context in which it was written. I thought he was talking about “summon”.