Canadian Heritage Committee on April 16th, 2021

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

I'm sorry, Ms. Atwin; wait one moment, please. Mr. Rayes has a point of order.

[Alain Rayes, Conservative, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

I've lost track of which amendment we are on exactly. You said that, if the amendment was adopted, others could not be moved. I'm unclear as to how this amendment relates to the others, so I'd like to know before we proceed.

Which amendment are we discussing right now?

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Okay, let me repeat that.

If PV-7 is adopted—if it is accepted by the committee as an amendment—it means that G-2, NDP-7 and BQ-5 cannot be moved. Again, it's the line conflict.

We're back to you, Ms. Atwin.

[Julie Dabrusin, Liberal, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

I think we've lost her.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Well, as I pointed out before, PV-7 is moved, so it carries on.

We can have a discussion about it, if you wish.

Ms. Dabrusin, go ahead.

[Julie Dabrusin, Liberal, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

I want to be clear, I guess. Is it the case that since it's moved, if it fails, we cannot move on to the next one, is it that if it fails, we just move on?

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

If it fails, we move on to the next one, yes.

[Julie Dabrusin, Liberal, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Let's go do that.

Sorry; I am in favour of doing that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Okay, but we still have to vote on it.

I see Mr. Champoux.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

I have a bit of a technical question, Mr. Chair.

Since the member is likely having technical difficulties and is not here to move the amendment, I'm wondering whether it's in order.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Yes, it is, because several years ago, as I pointed out, the Standing Orders allowed recognized parties and independents to be involved in the committee process. They can put an amendment forward for consideration and they can discuss it, as they've been doing all day today; what they cannot do is vote.

However, the other thing they can do is that once their motion is deemed.... Once we commence the hearings, their motions are deemed moved, because of the situation they are in. Those are the Standing Orders and what they dictate. Again, this is unique to the Green Party or any independents who put forward any amendments, so we are now compelled to have a discussion, if you wish to have a discussion, and we're also compelled to vote on this amendment because it's been deemed moved.

I hope that makes it clear.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Yes, thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Thank you.

Seeing no further discussion, I will move to a vote on PV-7. Shall PV-7 carry?

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

No.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

We will have a recorded vote.

(Amendment negatived: nays 11; yeas 0 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

We now go to G-2, and before we do, let us note that if G-2 is adopted, NDP-7 and BQ-5 cannot be moved due to line conflicts.

We now go to Mr. Housefather.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I think that this is an amendment that is common in terms of a theme that all parties want to recognize, which is that “each broadcasting undertaking shall make maximum use of Canadian creative and other resources in the creation and presentation of programming”.

What is missing in amendment G-2 that is in the others is the idea of “in no case less than predominant use”.

I would welcome, since I can't move that amendment to my own motion, if somebody else would move something here to introduce the concept of the words “in no case less than predominant” that I see in the NDP motion and the Bloc motion. I'm totally happy to accept that as an amendment and to support it.

Basically, then, it has the exclusion unless the nature of the service provided by the undertaking renders such use impracticable, in which case the undertaking shall make use of those resources to the extent that it can and should.

Again, I appreciate that I think we all agree overall on this, and if somebody would amend this amendment, that would be great.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Okay. We do not have a mover yet—

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Yes, sorry. I move the amendment as it is drafted, and I'm looking for somebody to subamend it.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Very good, then.

Go ahead, Ms. McPherson.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

I would be interested in subamending it—

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

All right.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

—to include “in no case less than predominant use”.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

As was described earlier by Mr. Housefather, and now Ms. McPherson, is everyone clear on the subamendment? Okay.

Now it's in discussion. I have Ms. McPherson up, but did you...?

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Is it possible for me to add a—

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Yes, go ahead.