Canadian Heritage Committee on June 10th, 2021

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Go ahead, Mr. Aitchison.

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

There's no debate—I understand that—but are we permitted to ask questions of clarification about the amendments or is that considered debate? Can we ask staff to make sure we understand what we're voting on?

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

I'm afraid not, Mr. Aitchison. I feel for the process. I feel for you—I do—but no. That's part of the debate as well, the normal course of debate. This is strictly now getting to each of the clauses and amendments that we've reinstated.

We left off with CPC-9.5 That's from the Conservative Party, amendment CPC-9.5.

(Amendment negatived: nays 6; yeas 5 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Before I go to the next one, when we do the voting, folks, I just want to be clear that when I call “shall it carry”, there are a couple of options that we've worked out. You can say “no”; however, if you agree with it, you don't have to say anything.

If nobody says anything, I'm going to let it carry. If you say “no”, I will go to a vote. If you wish to suggest that it carry on division or be defeated on division, you can make that suggestion at the same time. I can go back to the committee to find out if that is the way you wish to proceed.

Okay? If you agree with it, you don't have to say anything.

This brings us to CPC-9.6, and I have something a little different.

In reviewing CPC-9.6, it says it would add, in proposed section 9.2, in clause 7, after line 19 on page 8: “The Auditor General of Canada shall annually audit all the orders, conditions, regulations and decisions of the Commission”—meaning the CRTC—“with respect to the discoverability of programs”.

I don't need to proceed any further.

The reason I say that is that, if you look to page 770 in the third edition of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, it talks about “beyond the scope and principle of the bill”. In second reading, the House passed the bill, which means we accepted it in principle and scope, or at least the House did. I understand that not all of you do, but the majority of the House accepts the principle of it.

If we propose things that go beyond the scope of the bill, then it's my responsibility, as chair, to deem it inadmissible. What is going on here is that this particular amendment, CPC-9.6, calls on the Auditor General to do the work, but nowhere in Bill C-10 does it call on the Auditor General to do that. Not only that, it doesn't even require in the Broadcasting Act for the Auditor General to do that.

I'm not ruling on the intent of the amendment. In other words, I'm not saying I don't like the Auditor General. I'm saying that because Bill C-10 does not specify any function for the Auditor General to be involved, I have to rule it to be inadmissible. That's the ruling.

Mr. Rayes.

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

May I challenge your ruling, Mr. Chair?

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Yes.

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

Mr. Chair, I still love you, but I challenge your ruling.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Thank you, sir.

Now, we go through the same process again. Should the decision stand?

(Ruling of the chair sustained: yeas 6, nays 5)

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

I have news for you. We're actually done with clause 7. How about that? We have to check to see if that's the longest clause in our history of Parliament. Probably not, but I digress.

We are finished with clause 7, which brings us to the vote.

(Clause 7 as amended agreed to: yeas 7; nays 4)

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

If I ask for something to carry and you don't wish to chime in, you can do a thumbs-down if you wish, or make it quite obvious that you're not pleased. That will give me a good indication that I should go to the clerk for a vote.

(On clause 8)

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

We'll start with LIB-7(N).

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

Are we at clause 9 or clause 8, Mr. Chair?

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

This is clause 8.

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

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Shall LIB-7(N) carry?

(Amendment agreed to: yeas 7; nays 4 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

We'll now go to BQ-26(N).

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

Mr. Chair, I would like to have some clarification.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Go ahead, Monsieur Rayes.

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

At the beginning, you were reading the amendments, so that everyone listening to us would know what was being discussed. Now, no one knows what the votes are about. Is it possible to continue as you did before and at least read the amendment? I know we can't debate it, but it would be helpful to read the amendment, if only to allow the people listening to us to understand why we are voting for or against. That's just my suggestion to you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

The problem with that is that I would be engaging in debate, because it is admissible. The reason I started by talking about the amendment is that I was ruling it inadmissible. I could probably go as far as saying that BQ-26(N) replaces lines 12 and 13 on page 9, but that's probably not going to help you much. I can't engage in the introduction of it because we have to keep moving with what is admissible and keep voting on it.

I apologize, Mr. Rayes. As I said, I'll take this up with.... Actually, if everyone could give me a few minutes, let me clarify that. I'll see how far I can go on this. I apologize for the delay, folks.

Go ahead, Mr. Rayes.

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

I would appreciate it, Mr. Chair.

I don't want to have a debate, and I will defer to your decision. However, for the sake of the public interest and transparency, a good option would be to at least hear the heading of the amendment before the members of each party vote.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

I appreciate that, Mr. Rayes, and I think you might have a point there. I'm going to break for just a moment to discuss this with our legislative clerks.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

We're back and out of suspension.

Mr. Rayes, I feel for you on this one. Like I said earlier, I would love it for people watching. It probably would be a nice marker to look at. However, technically, our rules state that once I start reading the amendment, it becomes officially a part of debate. The instructions from the House say we cannot engage in debate, so technically I can't even read it.

The only consolation I have for you is that, when the minutes are printed, when this is done, they will include all the amendments and the wording of them. Whether they're defeated or accepted, they will be in the minutes, so that people can see exactly what was voted on, the language of it and the whole thing, but as of right now, I'm afraid that, no, I cannot read it. I can only give you a title of what we are voting on. In this case, that would be amendment BQ-26(N).

I appreciate your weighing in on that, because that's clarification for all of us.

Okay, folks, back we go. The question is on amendment BQ-26(N).

(Amendment negatived: nays 9; yeas 2 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

We now go to amendment PV-22. We're still on clause 8.

(Amendment negatived: nays 9: yeas 2 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

Now we go to amendment G-12.

(Amendment agreed to: yeas 7; nays 4 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

That brings us to PV-23.

(Amendment negatived: nays 8; yeas 2 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

That would have brought us to CPC-10. However, based on a ruling that was made on CPC-9, it is no longer at play.

Is that correct, Mr. Méla?