Evidence of meeting #25 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 amendment.
A recording is available from Parliament.
11:40 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Scott Simms
Is there any further discussion?
Seeing none, we will go to a vote on amendment CPC-2.
(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
We will now move to amendment PV-9.
Go ahead, Mr. Manly.
11:40 a.m.
Green
Paul Manly Green Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
This amendment emphasizes the importance of broadcasting and original French-language productions.
11:40 a.m.
Liberal
Lyne Bessette Liberal Brome—Missisquoi, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
We've already supported amendments LIB-3 and BQ-7, which are designed to achieve the same purpose as this one. Consequently, we don't think we need to adopt it, but I'd nevertheless like to hear my colleagues' opinions.
11:40 a.m.
Bloc
Martin Champoux Bloc Drummond, QC
I was about to make the same comment. The proposed amendment is not addressing exactly the same thing, but the idea is the same. So I'll leave it to the experts to tell us whether we need to adopt it as well. Personally, I think that we settled this matter in the other amendments that have already been dealt with.
11:40 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Scott Simms
Seeing no further discussion, we will now go to a vote.
Shall amendment PV-9 carry?
11:40 a.m.
Some hon. members
No.
11:40 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Scott Simms
Once again, I'd just like to remind everyone that if you want to do that, I'd prefer you'd bellow that out from the beginning. I can't make the interpretation on whether you want it to be on division or not.
Go ahead, Ms. Dabrusin.
11:45 a.m.
Liberal
Julie Dabrusin Liberal Toronto—Danforth, ON
I apologize. Part of the problem is that we're not in the same room. It's a little harder to see what's necessary. That's the only reason. I apologize for the slight delay there.
11:45 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Scott Simms
Okay. I'll just be a little bit more patient. I will listen for “negatived on division” before I make a judgment. How's that? I'll try to make this move along.
On amendment PV-9, do I hear “negatived on division”?
Okay. I hear no one calling for a recorded vote.
(Amendment negatived on division [See Minutes of Proceedings])
That brings us to amendment CPC-3.
Monsieur Rayes.
11:45 a.m.
Conservative
Alain Rayes Conservative Richmond—Arthabaska, QC
Mr. Chair, I think I heard you say earlier that if the Bloc Québécois amendment were to be adopted, amendment CPC-3 would be irrelevant.
11:45 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Scott Simms
I'm sorry, Mr. Rayes. I'm going to have to ask you to repeat it because my audio wasn't the best. Go ahead, please.
11:45 a.m.
Conservative
Alain Rayes Conservative Richmond—Arthabaska, QC
Not a problem, Mr. Chair.
A few moments ago, you said that if the Bloc Québécois amendment were adopted, amendment CPC-3 would no longer be necessary.
11:45 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Scott Simms
What happens is that it's dealing with the same subject. It's not necessarily the same, unless I'm wrong. I'm going to turn to Mr. Méla to help me out on this one.
They are dealing with the same subject, Mr. Méla. Do you want to provide a couple more details about the similarities here of BQ-7 and CPC-3?
11:45 a.m.
Legislative Clerk
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Yes, indeed. I did highlight the fact that BQ-7, PV-9 and CPC-3 were dealing with the same subject matter. Since one was adopted already, I'm not sure if the new one, CPC-3, is needed or not. This is up to the committee to decide.
11:45 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Scott Simms
All right. Basically, it is up to us at this point if you want to proceed.
Mr. Rayes, CPC-3 is in your name. You have a choice. You can either move it or not. I'll leave that up to you.
11:45 a.m.
Conservative
Alain Rayes Conservative Richmond—Arthabaska, QC
You can't be too careful, as the saying goes. I will therefore move the amendment, even though I believe that it says essentially the same thing as amendment BQ-7, and the committee can decide.
11:45 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Scott Simms
Okay. We'll go back to CPC-3. You all have it in front of you. Let's now proceed with discussion. Would anybody like to discuss?
Ms. Bessette, you have the floor.
11:45 a.m.
Liberal
Lyne Bessette Liberal Brome—Missisquoi, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Rayes, I understand your point that it can't hurt to say it again. However, if everything has been covered in amendment BQ-7, I don't think it's necessary to add what is proposed in amendment CPC-3.
11:45 a.m.
Liberal
Anthony Housefather Liberal Mount Royal, QC
Mr. Chair, the same perspective has been emphasized. I think this was covered in the original Bloc Québécois amendment.
I just wanted to point out, Mr. Chair, again clearly a logistical question. What PV-9 was meant to replace after line 7 on page 4 in the previous motion was defeated on division. In my view, that would render this one not even admissible given that its content is identical to what we just defeated in the previous amendment.
I also just mention that for the future, because I think they're two essentially identical amendments in the same place, and once we defeat one, I do believe that the other one at that point is essentially squelched, because we just defeated the exact same content in the same line.
It's for you to consider, Mr. Chair. Otherwise, I'm totally fine to just move to a vote on this.
11:45 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Scott Simms
Yes, I will consider it, obviously, but I can't technically rule this out under the normal rules and standards of the committee process, so I have to let it proceed. It's more of a judgment on your part as to whether you feel it is similar or not. I leave that to the committee members to decide, as then you're dealing purely with the content level of it. Normally when I negate other amendments, usually it's a line conflict in which there's a substantial change, enough so that I have to make that ruling. In this case, it is not.
I have to let it proceed, I'm afraid. I understand what you're saying. Content-wise, we're looking at a lot of the same. I had better leave it at that or I'm going to drift into being partial about the content, and I don't want to go there. As your chair, it's not my job.
Mr. Housefather, thanks for that. I appreciate it.
Do I see any further discussion on CPC-3? Shall CPC-3 carry?