Evidence of meeting #1 for Canadian Heritage in the 43rd Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was motions.
A recording is available from Parliament.
4:25 p.m.
Liberal
4:25 p.m.
The Clerk
There has been an update to Zoom, I believe, which should have rectified the issue Mr. Housefather is speaking about. However, my understanding is that the update wasn't necessarily automatic. If your own Zoom application was not updated, you may experience it. I had this experience in another committee I was sitting in on yesterday, where some individuals who had still not updated their Zoom still had the previous issue when they were trying to switch from English to French, and unfortunately they were stuck on the wrong toggle, so to speak.
Without any word yet from the interpreters, I would suggest, Mr. Housefather, that you can certainly give that a try. If we do have any issues, I'm sure they will flag them to me, and I'm sure the members, unfortunately, will hear about them as well.
Again, my understanding is that with the new version of Zoom, that should have been resolved.
4:25 p.m.
Liberal
Anthony Housefather Liberal Mount Royal, QC
Perfect. That was my understanding too. Thank you.
Colleagues, I have a very simple motion, which I hope will not be that difficult. As you will all remember, we spent a couple of meetings in the last session before prorogation adopting various motions for studies. These motions came from all of the different parties.
As opposed to redebating and fighting over whether or not we agree with wording, or what wording, since we already amended those motions, I'd like to just readopt the motions that we adopted in the last Parliament as they were. That doesn't mean we have to prioritize those or even do those studies, but in case the subcommittee does want to prioritize those studies, it would give them the latitude to do so.
Mr. Chair, I move:
That the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage agree that all substantive motions adopted by the Committee to undertake studies or hear from witnesses in the 1st session of the 43rd legislature are hereby adopted again by the Committee without modification or amendment.
Basically, that should save us from having to spend a meeting or two debating motions that had already been adopted. However, as I said, it doesn't necessarily mean that the subcommittee would prioritize those studies or that we would even do them. They would just be added to our list, and we could examine them if we like.
Mr. Chair, hopefully that would have acceptance from my colleagues.
4:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Scott Simms
Thank you, Mr. Housefather.
Is there any discussion? I know the hands are up here on the side.
This is where it gets a little complicated. If you want to address the issue that Mr. Housefather brought up, show me your hand.
I'm trying to come up with a system. I know we have Monsieur Champoux on something different and we also have Madame Bessette. I'm looking to Tom for clarification on that one.
Would anyone like to discuss the matter brought up by Mr. Housefather?
(Motion agreed to)
Mr. Champoux, please go ahead.
4:30 p.m.
Bloc
Martin Champoux Bloc Drummond, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I have two motions to put before the committee today. The first reads as follows:
That, pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the Committee undertake a study on the difficulties and challenges facing regional media, issues that have been aggravated by the COVID-19 pandemic, with a view to proposing protections that could be introduced by the federal government, and that, for this purpose, the Committee evaluate the possibility of establishing a Canadian Print Media Fund with money generated by taxing the profits of web giants and collecting GST on online advertising; that the Committee devote a minimum of three (3) meetings to this study; and that the Committee report its findings and recommendations to the House.
Now I will read the second motion, Mr. Chair.
That, pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the Committee undertake a study on the challenges and issues facing the cultural and tourism sectors in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, with a view to proposing a survival and recovery plan for these sectors; that the Committee devote a minimum of three (3) meetings to this study; and that the Committee report its findings and recommendations to the House.
4:30 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Scott Simms
Mr. Champoux, we have two motions that you've brought forward.
With the indulgence of the committee, I propose that we deal with motion number one to begin with.
You've read it into the record. We will now open it up for conversation.
I see Mr. Rayes.
October 14th, 2020 / 4:30 p.m.
Conservative
4:30 p.m.
Conservative
Martin Shields Conservative Bow River, AB
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
As you have asked for these two motions to be separated and read, my question previously—and I agree with Mr. Housefather in his intention—was whether they have to be read separately and approved as we have done with the other pieces before.
I just caught that, in a sense, when you reminded me that you wanted to read these motions. Can we do whole motions for a group that were in the past? Can you do that?
4:30 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Scott Simms
As masters of our own destiny, what Mr. Housefather brought forth....
You're talking about the motions in the last session. Is that correct?
4:30 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Scott Simms
What Mr. Housefather proposed is that we accept those. We voted on those and now they are a part of....
I'd like to ask Tom the clerk to distribute the motions that Mr. Housefather referred to as being brought forward to this session.
4:30 p.m.
Conservative
Martin Shields Conservative Bow River, AB
Okay, so they can be done in a group and not have to be voted on.... Because we voted on everything else individually and you're asking for these two motions to be voted on individually. Can they...?
I'm guess I'm asking whether it's proper procedure to separate them or to have them done as one.
4:30 p.m.
Liberal
4:30 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Scott Simms
You're talking about Mr. Housefather's motion. We already voted on that, sir.
4:30 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Scott Simms
That's the only problem with that. You can divide these and discuss them if you so wish. However, we've already dispensed with those.
4:30 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Scott Simms
In the meantime, I'm making the call right now on motion number one to have a discussion and then a vote.
Ms. Dabrusin.
4:35 p.m.
Liberal
Julie Dabrusin Liberal Toronto—Danforth, ON
I was wondering whether you had it in writing, Mr. Chair. It would be a bit easier if we could read it. This is fairly important, after all. Can you email it to everyone?
4:35 p.m.
Bloc
Martin Champoux Bloc Drummond, QC
I did actually send them to the clerk of the committee a bit earlier, and they have been translated. He has them in hand and they are ready to be distributed. However, I think I'll ask the clerk how to proceed at this point. Can the motions be emailed out right away or is it better to wait until the next meeting?
4:35 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Scott Simms
We certainly could save that discussion for another time if you so wish.
Ms. Dabrusin, I'll come back to you, if you would like to address what Mr. Champoux just discussed.
4:35 p.m.
Liberal
Julie Dabrusin Liberal Toronto—Danforth, ON
It's more a procedural question, I guess, for us to think about for all substantive motions going forward. I don't know if there's even a “pin screen” function that we can start developing on Zoom, where we can have the wording up and look at it, like a “share screen” kind of function.
In theory, I don't necessarily have a problem with the motion that's been proposed. Having just heard it, I'm not sure I have focused on all the words that were said. It's just that this is a substantive motion. I'm not protesting anything about the motion; I'm just wondering if there is a way for us to be able to actually read it.
I suspect there would be some crossover if I had conversations with other members of the committee. There might be crossover in interests on some of these motions. Other people might have other words they would want to toss in or amend.
4:35 p.m.
NDP
Heather McPherson NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
I just want to echo a little bit of what Ms. Dabrusin was saying. I would like to have it in a written format so that I could actually examine it and look at it a little more carefully.
I also just want to clarify, because of course—as I mentioned earlier—I am new. This doesn't indicate that this would be the order of any studies we would do. This wouldn't preclude any further studies we would want to do.
