Evidence of meeting #24 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 chair.
A recording is available from Parliament.
3:30 p.m.
NDP
Heather McPherson NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
The piece in mine that will then, of course, fall off is about the foreign online companies. Can we add that to the subamendment? Can that be included in this?
3:30 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Scott Simms
The quick answer is no. You've moved a subamendment, so we have to dispense with that first. Following that, you're free to subamend again. Right now, though, we're dealing with the subamendment.
Does anybody want me to repeat it? Is it necessary? I didn't get the full wording. My audio kicked out on me again. That includes what Mr. Housefather started with, so I apologize.
Do you have a point of order, Mr. Champoux?
3:30 p.m.
Bloc
Martin Champoux Bloc Drummond, QC
No, I don't have a point of order. My hand has been up because I would like to comment.
3:30 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Scott Simms
Okay. Before I do that, I had a few audio glitches. I'm going to ask our legislative clerk, if he is available, to repeat the subamendment that was put forward by Ms. McPherson, please.
3:35 p.m.
Legislative Clerk
Thank you, Chair. I was actually going to ask you where it was going to be.
3:35 p.m.
Liberal
3:35 p.m.
Liberal
Anthony Housefather Liberal Mount Royal, QC
Mr. Chair, I was just going to advise Jacques, if that's okay, that it would read, “Each broadcasting undertaking shall make maximum use, and in no case less than predominant use, of Canadian creative and other resources”. Does that make it clear to Jacques?
3:35 p.m.
Liberal
Anthony Housefather Liberal Mount Royal, QC
It would say, “Each broadcasting undertaking shall make maximum use,” and this is where the amendment would now be. We would add the words, “and in no case less than predominant use,” and then it continues, “of Canadian creative....”
We're essentially adding words that you can find in both the Bloc and the NDP amendments in that place.
3:35 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Scott Simms
Okay, just hold it there. Philippe, I'll give you some time with that and go to Mr. Champoux first.
3:35 p.m.
Bloc
Martin Champoux Bloc Drummond, QC
I'm a bit puzzled, Mr. Chair. What Mr. Housefather and Ms. McPherson are proposing already appears in amendments put forward by the NDP and the Bloc Québécois. If the committee votes against this amendment, it will have a choice between two others. I think that would be much easier and give us something more satisfactory. It would make our lives way easier.
3:35 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Scott Simms
Before we go any further, I appreciate the comments and what you're saying, but right now we're dealing with a subamendment that was put forward officially by Ms. McPherson.
Ms. McPherson, would you...? No.
Ms. Dabrusin, go ahead.
3:35 p.m.
Liberal
Julie Dabrusin Liberal Toronto—Danforth, ON
I wanted to respond to what Monsieur Champoux said. I'm flipping back and forth between the amendments and I'm seeing that there are still differences in the wording. I am seeing that Mr. Champoux's wording might more closely follow the one that Mr. Housefather moved. To my mind, because we're already debating this one, we're here and we have this subamendment on the floor, it would probably be faster and cleaner to just add that wording that was subamended and then to move forward.
By the way, I think we need to acknowledge—because I support the subamendment Ms. McPherson had proposed on maximum use—that this is a great moment. We're seeing opposition parties coming together and working to get this right. I just wanted to put that in there. Let's do this subamendment and move on.
3:35 p.m.
NDP
Heather McPherson NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
I just wanted some clarity, Mr. Chair. The text in “(f)” in this subamendment is very similar to the text in the NDP's “(f)” and the Bloc's “(f)”. Does that mean that we will not be able to debate proposed paragraph 3(1)(f.1) in NDP-7?
3:35 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Scott Simms
That is a good question.
I'm going to return to Philippe on two counts now. I'll ask him to repeat the subamendment, and also, because I'm not there, I too have the very same question you do regarding whether we go to NDP-7 now if it's subamended.
Philippe, are you with us?
3:35 p.m.
Liberal
3:35 p.m.
Legislative Clerk
Thank you, Chair.
If G-2 were adopted, with or without the subamendment, NDP-7 could not be moved because of the line conflict. It would be the same for BQ-5.
3:35 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Scott Simms
Yes. I'm sorry. I should have pointed that out. I offer my apologies there.
I will repeat that: if this amendment is carried, NDP-7 and BQ-5 cannot be moved due to a line conflict. It's pretty straightforward.
We have Mr. Champoux.