Canadian Heritage Committee on June 11th, 2021

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Welcome back, everyone, to clause-by-clause on Bill C-10 at the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage.

To people listening to us, viewing us from afar on the web, on the Internet, you have my apologies. We had a technical problem there at the beginning. We are now overdue, obviously, but nevertheless here we are.

We're going to resume our consideration of clause-by-clause, under what we have received from the House of Commons and the procedure that we are going through.

Before I get into that, however, I want to address something that was raised by Mr. Waugh about a motion of his. I seemed to indicate on Friday that it would be okay. Unfortunately, in this case we cannot deal this since we are now under the ruling that came from the House. We're proceeding with the debate and the clause-by-clause consideration.

However, that being said, I just wanted to bring it up, because I wanted to assure you. Obviously, it fits within the confines of the 48 hours' rule. Therefore, when we finish with Bill C-10, and we have time left over, why doesn't the first order of business be your motion, once we are done?

Just to give everyone a heads-up, when we end we will go to Mr. Waugh's motion. You have received the motion. Please give it your due consideration before that meeting arrives. Following the finish of this particular bill, we'll go into Mr. Waugh's motion.

I think that's about it before we start.

I just also wanted to remind everyone about some of the rules we have here.

We cannot engage in debate. As we go through this there can be no amendments or subamendments, as directed by the majority of the House of Commons on a ruling that took place last week on time allocation.

The only time you will hear me talk more than perhaps you desire, nevertheless, is when I make a ruling on a particular amendment. All the amendments you received in your package will be discussed. If I need to make a ruling I will do so, and I will explain to the best of my ability as to why it is inadmissible.

I promise you, since there is no opportunity to talk about the particular motion by the person who moved it, I will pause—hopefully there will not be an awkward silence—and give time for all of you to consider, because you do have the option to appeal. You can challenge the chair's ruling.

We've already done that once, but I felt at the time I was probably moving a little bit too quickly, and for that I apologize. What I will do, if I have to make a ruling on inadmissibility, is that I will take a pause and you can decide whether you want to appeal that ruling.

Let's go back to where we were.

We are now moving—

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

Mr. Chair, just a point of order.

I wasn't here for the last consideration of this. I guess I'm a bit confused about one point. Normally, committees are masters of their own domain. They set their own rules. We're operating now, though, under a framework of a House order, where the committee is constrained in terms of what it can do.

In the past, when committees have operated under a House order around time allocation on amendments, they have in every case abided by the House order in terms of not allowing amendments to be moved. But we're in a situation now where the committee has overruled your ruling on that and is arguably defying a House order. I'm not sure if the committee can do that, overrule a House order.

You've just told us a number of things we have to do vis-à-vis the House order. If members of the committee have decided through a challenge to the chair that they're not going to abide by the House order, it raises lots of questions. One of them is, why does the committee have to adhere to any of the House orders? I guess that's what—

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

It does, Mr. Genuis. I appreciate your argument, I really do, but at first blush I would have to say this is an argument, I think, you should probably make in front of the House, as per their order. I do have these instructions. When I get challenged, I have to rule the other way. I don't have much more scope than that, other than the debates, the amendments and the subamendments that may follow, as I said. Yes, if I make a ruling and it's overruled, I have nowhere to go but the other direction, obviously.

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

That's right.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

This is no reflection on your argument whatsoever, other than the fact that you may be right on target, but I think you're wide of the mark as to where your argument may be best put.

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

Okay, Mr. Chair, but—

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

I can get back to you on that, by the way. If we have a three-hour meeting, we're obviously going to have a break at some point, I assume. During that break, I will confer with the legislative clerks about your point, but at first blush, I think your argument is probably well placed within the context of the House of Commons.

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

I have just a follow-up point of order, then.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Go ahead.

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

From what I understand in terms of the ground rules you've laid out at the beginning, the committee can, by majority, at any point overrule those ground rules if they challenge the chair. If that puts us at odds with the House order—again, we're already potentially at odds with the House order—you're saying those are arguments that can be made or not made in the House, but that they can't be made here, essentially, because you have to adhere to challenges, whatever they say.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

I'll consult on that as well, Mr. Genuis.

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

Yes, okay.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

I will. I promise.

In the meantime, when it comes to challenging the chair, like I said, I have two ways to go. I can either stick with my original ruling or go the opposite way, which I did the last time. Further to that, I don't know what to tell you other than the fact that we can't allow debate and we can't allow amendments, and those are pretty crystal clear from the ruling that we received from the majority of the House.

I do thank you for your point of order, and I will look into it during the first break.

(On clause 8)

That said, we left off at and are now at G-13(N).

(Amendment agreed to: yeas 11; nays 0 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(Clause 8 as amended agreed to: yeas 7; nays 4)

(On clause 9)

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

This brings us to CPC-10.1, put forward by Mr. Rayes.

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

(Clause 9 as amended agreed to: yeas 7; nays 4)

(On clause 10)

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

The first one we are dealing with is PV-24. This is the first of the PV amendments. As I ruled earlier, the amendments from the Green Party are automatically deemed moved due to an order that we decided upon at the beginning of this Parliament.

I wish to discuss it.

PV-24 attempts to remove the discretionary power of the CRTC to make regulations when needed, to force the CRTC to make them in all cases referred to in proposed subsection 11.1(1) of the act. As a result, this power was not originally envisioned in Bill C-10 itself.

That being said, according to page 770 of [Technical difficulty—Editor] goes beyond the principle and scope of the bill.

I'll repeat how that works. This bill has been accepted at second reading, which means we accept the principle and the scope that the bill puts out there. This particular amendment goes beyond the principle and scope of the bill, which we've already voted on. Therefore, it exceeds the will of the House in this particular case.

I have to make a ruling that PV-24 is inadmissible.

I'll give you a moment to reflect. I hope everybody's well.

Now, if you go back to your hymn books, we'll move on to LIB-8, moved by Mr. Housefather.

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

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Now we go to BQ-28, which was put forward by Mr. Champoux.

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

This brings us to LIB-9.

I forgot to mention off the top, for anyone just joining us that when I say LIB and these titles, similar to what you would hear at bingo, essentially what this is.... LIB is an amendment put forward by the Liberal party. CPC would be one put forward by the Conservative members of the committee. BQ would be one put forward by the Bloc Québécois members. “NDP” followed by a number would be one from the New Democrat on the committee, and PV—Parti Vert—would be for amendments put forward and deemed moved by the Green Party, primarily Mr. Manly. Finally, G means that it's an amendment put forward by the government.

That being said, as I mentioned, we're on LIB-9, which was put forward by Mr. Housefather.

I have a note before you start [Technical difficulty—Editor ]. I'll say this slowly. If LIB-9 is adopted, BQ-29 becomes moot, as they both contain the same provisions. They are similar enough that you are voting on both LIB-9 and BQ-29.

Officially, it's LIB-9 that we're voting on.

(Amendment agreed to: yeas 10; nays 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

That brings us to BQ-30, which was put forward by Mr. Champoux.

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

(Clause 10 as amended agreed to: yeas 7; nays 4)

(Clause 11 agreed to: yeas 7; nays 4)

( On clause 12)

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

We have some amendments for clause 12. We have BQ-31 put forward by Mr. Champoux, but there is a note. Before you vote, I want everyone to be aware that, if BQ-31 is adopted, then PV-25 becomes moot, as it contains the same provisions as BQ-31. That's PV-25, which would normally fall later, but it's similar to BQ-31, so essentially you're voting on both.

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

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

I declare the amendment negatived, and I declare the same for PV-25.

Those were the only amendments for clause 12. Therefore, we go directly to the clause vote.

(Clause 12 agreed to: yeas 7; nays 4)

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Next we have new clause 12.1, in amendment G-14, which was put forward by Ms. Dabrusin.

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

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Thank you very much for the clarification. That brings us to the end.

Shall clause 13 carry as amended?

[Philippe Méla, Legislative Clerk]

Mr. Chair, clause 13 was not amended. It was just—

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

I apologize. It was a straight-up clause.

The amendment was in the last one we carried, which was considered new clause 12.1.

(Clause 13 agreed to: yeas 7; nays 4)

Mr. Méla, thank you for pointing that out. Thank goodness for smart people.

With clause 13 carried, we now move on to the next amendment, which brings us to CPC-11.

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

Mr. Chair, on a point of order.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

You have the floor, Mr. Rayes.