Canadian Heritage Committee on June 10th, 2021

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

As always we benefit from your wisdom.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

I'd say that opinion is accepted on division, but go ahead.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Because I believe that all of the amendments by all of the parties should indeed be considered and voted on, I challenge the ruling.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Absolutely. When there's a challenge to a ruling, we go straight to a vote.

I just want everyone to understand what's being done, which is that I ruled that the amendments that we have not dealt with, which are CPC-9.5 and on, are not moved and we cannot vote on them.

Mr. Housefather has now challenged that ruling, and I'm going to turn to the clerk for the vote.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Chair, I'd like some clarification.

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

Mr. Chair, a point of order.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Unfortunately I have to go straight to a vote, but if you're asking for clarification....

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

That's right, I'd like some clarification.

Since this is an important decision, could you give us five minutes to consult with our respective party colleagues to decide how we are going to vote?

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Yes, since we are in uncharted territories, Mr. Rayes, I think that's a fair request. However, I ask everyone to please keep this break to five minutes or less.

Be very quick, Mr. Champoux.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

I will be brief, Mr. Chair.

If your decision is overturned as a result of the vote of the committee, do we have to vote on all the remaining amendments that we have not debated, or could some of the amendments be removed from the list?

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Yes, it is just strictly a reversal.

Is everybody okay?

We'll see you in five minutes. Don't forget to turn your video off and then turn it back on when you're ready to come back.

We are suspended.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Welcome back, everybody. Once again, this is clause-by-clause on Bill C-10.

I'm going to clarify once more what we're doing right now. The ruling was such that—

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Mr. Chair, on a point of order, Mr. Champoux is not there.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Thank you for that, Mr. Housefather. I thought I saw him.

There he is.

Mr. Champoux, it's good to see you back.

Let me describe this one more time so that we're all on the same page.

The second ruling I made was that any motion that's not been moved cannot be voted upon. Mr. Housefather has challenged the ruling, so the vote will be on whether the chair's ruling should stand. In other words, if you agree with me that we shouldn't deal with these amendments, then you vote yes. If you think I'm wrong in my judgment, or by the standing orders, then you vote no and the amendments go back into play. They will be voted on again.

There's one more thing I'd like to point out, though. If the ruling is overturned, the amendments go back in—all that are there. If you wish to remove one, you can do it at any time, until I say, for example, now we're doing this G-12. Once I say that, G-12 has been moved and, therefore, you would need unanimous consent to withdraw it.

Is that clear?

Monsieur Rayes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I have two questions.

First, do we need unanimity to overturn your decision? In other words, does your decision stand as soon as one person says they support you?

Second, does the committee have the power to change a decision of the House of Commons that has been referred to it?

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

The quick answers are no and no.

On the first question, no, you don't need unanimous consent. A majority can overturn the decision. On the second part, no, the instructions from the House were clear—they were passed by a majority of the House—and we have to go through with that.

Did I hear someone else?

Go ahead, Mr. Rayes.

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

Mr. Chair, if we cannot change the decision of the House of Commons, how can we vote to allow the amendments that have not been introduced to be voted on? The motion of the House of Commons is clear: we must vote only on the amendments that have already been introduced.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

That's correct to a certain degree, but keep in mind, under normal circumstances, what they're asking.... The instruction from the House is that you then proceed to what you were normally doing, except you don't propose amendments or you don't debate. Whatever is moved can be voted on in clause-by-clause, and because these are not moved, then we cannot vote on them.

However, if you overrule my ruling, then they're back in play—we do just the other thing—and that is the will of the committee to do that.

[Scott Aitchison, Conservative, Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON]

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

I respectfully have to disagree. We've not overturning your ruling if we vote against you. We're trying to overturn a ruling of the House of Commons. I don't think we can do that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

No, I think.... Okay, here's what I will do. Maybe I'm not explaining this well.

Monsieur Méla, are you there, or Aimée?

Either one of you, please go ahead.

[Philippe Méla, Legislative Clerk]

I am here, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Go ahead. I think you heard Mr. Aitchison's concern.

[Philippe Méla]

Mr. Aitchison, the motion of the House is silent as to what to take into consideration. We have the package that's here, and the motion says, “every question necessary for the disposal of the said stage of the bill shall be put forthwith and successively without further debate or amendment.”

Basically, the interpretation that's being given by the chair is that there are the amendments from the Parti vert that are deemed moved, according to the motion that was passed by the committee, so those are going to be voted upon. The others—that's the interpretation of the motion by the chair of the committee—will not, because there is no motion adopted by the committee that designates them as deemed moved.

Since this is an interpretation by the chair of the motion by the House, it is up to the committee to decide if the committee agrees with this interpretation or not. We have had a few examples of that happening in the past.

It's an interpretation that the chair is giving on the motion by the House, and after that, it's up to the committee to decide if it agrees or disagrees with the ruling of the chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

That being said, I see Mr. Rayes's hand up, but, folks, the other thing I'm supposed to be doing right now is going directly to a vote on the challenge. Let's just say I've been stepping all over that particular rule and I really don't want to do that anymore.

I see everyone's hand down, so we're going to the vote. Once again this is to sustain or to agree with my ruling.

(Ruling of the chair overturned: nays 7; yeas 4)

There you have it. You don't have to worry about my being offended—trust me.

Now that the rulings have been made, we're now going to dive into it.

Let me just say this before we go any further. It means that all of the amendments you've handed in, which are in our huge package—or, as I like to call it, the hymn book—are now back. We will vote not only on the Parti vert ones, the PV amendments, but also on the CPC ones.

For the people watching us at home, I understand that you are not able to see these particular amendments or hear about them. I'm sure someone who's watching this closely may find that frustrating. This is my own opinion, dare I say it, but maybe at some time in the future we can talk to procedure and House affairs, since people watch online, on computer, and we can have some type of split-screen whereby they can actually see the amendments. That's just my opinion. I'm putting it out there, colleagues, for the sake of people who are watching. A lot of people are watching this right now, and we welcome them.

As we go through the clauses, we're going to do the amendments. When I say “CPC” that's an amendment put forward by the Conservative Party. When I say “LIB”, that is one put forward by the Liberal Party. When I say “BQ” that's one put forward by the Bloc. NDP and the number means one put forward by the New Democrats. “PV” will be Parti vert, the Green Party; and, finally, “G” means an amendment by the government.

That being said, because all of these amendments are back in, I still have the ability and should make rulings on each of these amendments. Some may be inadmissible. Primarily, usually, that's because they're beyond the principle and scope of the bill. If I do rule that an amendment is inadmissible, I will explain why. You still have the option of challenging that ruling, but it's a straight vote; it's not a debate. I will call for that. I will explain my ruling, and then you have the choice of either challenging it or not, and then we move on to the next one, but there is no debate.

Again I remind everyone that there is no debate and no amendment or subamendment in this exercise.

All that being said, we left off on—

[Scott Aitchison, Conservative, Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON]

I have a point of clarification, Mr. Chair.