Canadian Heritage Committee on June 11th, 2021

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

Yes, Mr. Chair, insofar as it responds to what Mr. Méla has said.

What happened at the last meeting was that you made a ruling that the amendments had not been moved. Therefore, the House order obliged you not to allow them to be moved after the fact. That was your ruling. That ruling was challenged and overturned.

Now you are making a ruling again that is substantively the same as your last ruling, which is that the House order does not allow further amendment. Those earlier amendments had not been moved, and it's clear in the way you're talking about this. Every time an amendment is moved, you're saying, “This amendment has now been moved.”

In fact, you said earlier in the meeting to Mr. Rayes that an amendment can be withdrawn before it is moved, but it is deemed moved once you read it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Okay. I get your new argument.

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

You can't not allow a challenge when you allowed a challenge before on this same point.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Okay, Mr. Genuis. I'm going to allow Mr. Méla to deal with your point.

Mr. Méla, go ahead.

[Philippe Méla]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm not sure I can add more than what I explained earlier. The motion of the House, as I indicated earlier, is silent when it comes to the amendments that were in the package. At the end of the day, the committee decided to be able to consider all the amendments that were in the package before the committee at that point, because the motion of the House was silent on that particular point.

When it comes to amendments and subamendments, at this point now, the motion of the House is clear and indicates that there cannot be any further debate, amendments or subamendments. I think there is a slight difference between the two rulings that were made by the chair: one for precision on something that was maybe missing in the House order, and one now that is clear from the House order.

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

Mr. Méla, I have one question for you.

You've said that they were—

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Mr. Genuis, hold on. You can't talk unless I recognize you, please.

I'm assuming that you want a point of clarification on what was just said.

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

Yes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Then may I humbly ask that you be very quick about it?

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

Mr. Méla, you said that in your view there is a difference between those two rulings. Is there any basis on which a ruling of the chair cannot be challenged?

You called his second ruling a ruling, which it is, and if it's a ruling, then it might be the correct ruling and it might not be, but my understanding of the powers of members of committees is that they have the power to challenge any ruling of the chair. Is that correct?

[Philippe Méla]

Generally speaking, I would say yes to that, but here—

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

Great.

[Philippe Méla]

—we are under the purview of a House order and that's where we're at. I don't think that.... When you say the chair made a ruling, the chair is following what the House order is, which basically tells us no further amendments or no further debate.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Mr. Genuis, I appreciate your comments, I truly do. I think maybe you want to bring it up with the House—you're certainly entitled to do that—but this is our interpretation of how we have to proceed based on the motion we have received from the House on this time allocation motion. I thank you for that.

We now go on to LIB-9.1.

Shall LIB-9.1 carry? Seeing no push-back, I declare LIB-9.1 carried.

(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

Now we're moving on to clauses 14 to 17. There are no amendments, so I will call for the votes.

(Clauses 14 to 17 inclusive agreed to: yeas 7; nays 4)

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

Sorry, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Yes, Mr. Rayes?

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

I don't know if I need to raise a point of order for this, but my body needs a few minutes' break.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

I understand.

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

I don't know if this is the proper way to ask, but I'm asking for a five-minute break, if possible.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Everyone, you have up to a five-minute break. I'll look for everyone's face to be back on screen for the reconvening. I ask that you please keep it within five minutes.

Therefore, we are now suspended.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Welcome back, everybody.

(On clause 18)

We left off at clause 18, so we're starting with PV-26.

I need to say this about PV-26 before we proceed any further.

Bill C-10 amends the Broadcasting Act to provide for the Governor in Council to be able to review a decision made by the CRTC under section 9 of the act. The amendment expands this power to the orders that the CRTC may make under proposed section 9.1 of the act, which is not envisioned in the bill. Again, we go back to page 770 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, regarding an amendment being beyond the scope of a bill.

PV-26 expands the power of the Governor in Council to cabinet and that is beyond the scope of the bill. Therefore, I have to rule that PV-26 is inadmissible.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Chair, I'm challenging your decision.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Okay.

Madam Clerk, please explain about the vote to sustain the decision of the chair. I think everybody now knows how to do this, but I think it bears repeating.

Thank you.

[Danielle Widmer, Committee Clerk]

If a member agrees with the ruling, the vote should be yes. If a member disagrees with the ruling, the vote should be no.

(Ruling of the chair overturned: nays 8; yeas 3)

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

We now go to PV-26.

If PV-26 is adopted, NDP-13 cannot be moved as it is identical. If PV-26 is negatived, so is NDP-13 for the same reason.

If PV-26 is adopted, BQ-32 cannot be moved due to a line conflict. Essentially, if PV-26 is adopted, BQ-32 becomes problematic to adopt because it's based on older wording.