Canadian Heritage Committee on June 11th, 2021

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

We are on LIB-9.1.

Brace yourselves. This may shock you all, but I have something to say.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

I challenge the chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

I appreciate the eagerness. Don't get me wrong, but I feel for this particular democratic function that I should provide an explanation.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

But you're not reading the amendments, Mr. Chair, with all due respect. If you're reading a ruling but not reading the amendment, I mean—

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

I understand, Mr. Genuis. I understand that. I know. These are strange times indeed. Sometimes I feel the same way you do. However, I feel like I must....

I'll make this brief, if that helps:

...an amendment is inadmissible if it proposes to amend a statute that is not before the committee or a section of the parent Act, unless the latter is specifically amended by a clause of the bill.

Again, this pertains to changes in the Broadcasting Act in section 22. Therefore, I cannot allow this to be admissible. I deem it to be inadmissible.

What say you?

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

I challenge you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

I'm shocked.

(Ruling of the chair overturned: nays 11; yeas 0)

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Okay. It's overturned. I'm sitting alone at the head of the [Technical difficulty—Editor].

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

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

I was starting to feel like I was in a North Korean cabinet meeting.

Nevertheless, Mr. Rayes, go ahead.

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

Mr. Chair, you are by far the best chair I have seen managing a group like ours.

After three extremely difficult decisions for your morale, I want to know if there is anything I can offer you to help you keep smiling until the end of the meeting. If so, you can email me your address, and I'll have something delivered immediately, whether it's flowers or a small glass of something strong.

I just wanted to say that I felt for you.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

The chair is in Newfoundland-and-Labrador; the delivery would cost you, Mr. Rayes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

I'm [Technical difficulty—Editor]. That's a valid point. Yes, here we are in the North Atlantic.

That's not a point of order, I'm afraid. However, the generosity is well appreciated. It really is.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Do you have a point of order, Mr. Genuis?

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Yes. I would like to move a subamendment to the amendment from Mr. Housefather.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

I'm afraid we don't allow subamendments, sir. Orders from the House dictate that I cannot do that.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

I'd like to challenge your ruling that I can't submit a subamendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

I'm afraid you can't do that, sir. We have strict orders from the House. Again, I mentioned to you earlier about dealing with the House.

Right now I have to go to the vote, as the challenge was done. Once I make a ruling like that and it's been challenged and overturned, I have to go straight to a vote.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Chair, on the point of order, though, the challenge was whether the amendment was admissible. The challenge has been overruled, which means the amendment is admissible.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

I'm now—

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Just let me finish the point of order.

The amendment has now been submitted. I would like to submit a subamendment to the amendment before it goes to a vote.

In the past we have had cases where you made a ruling, based on your view of the House order, that was overruled by the committee. You have again made a ruling, based on your understanding of the House order, that a subamendment is not admissible. I am challenging your ruling that a subamendment is not admissible.

Let's vote on the challenge. If the challenge is sustained, then I can't submit this subamendment. If it's not, then I can.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

I understand, Mr. Genuis.

What I'm going to do is consult with the legislative clerk. I said I would do it earlier, but I'll do it now.

I'm afraid that I have to go to this vote, because that's part of the rules as well. Obviously, you can't challenge on that particular.... Once the ruling takes place, and it's challenged and voted on, I have to go directly to that.

I will say this: Once that's completed, I will consult with the legislative clerk to discuss that.

What has happened here is that when a ruling is challenged on my admissibility, that's not discussed in the directions from the House. However, it's quite clear as to where we can go with amendments or any other subamendments to that.

What I'm going to do is this: We have to go to a vote, as was expected for LIB-9.1—

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

But—

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Mr. Genuis, no. I'm going to do this right now—

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

It's a subamendment to LIB-9.1.