There was a subamendment.
Evidence of meeting #122 for Canadian Heritage in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was chair.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Evidence of meeting #122 for Canadian Heritage in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was chair.
A recording is available from Parliament.
4:10 p.m.
A voice
There was a subamendment.
4:10 p.m.
Conservative
The Vice-Chair Conservative Kevin Waugh
Yes, we did your subamendment to G-2. Then we went to G-2.
Then we went to BQ-5, and now I'm moving down to.... Because of G-2, we had BQ-4, CPC-6 and NDP-2 that couldn't be moved due to a line conflict.
4:10 p.m.
Conservative
4:10 p.m.
Bloc
Martin Champoux Bloc Drummond, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Once again, the purpose of BQ‑6 is to allow for more transparency. Without necessarily getting into the details that identify the applicants, we would like to have a little more transparency, as I was saying, particularly on the number of cases that were not accepted under the program. We propose that the Department of Canadian Heritage Act be amended by adding the following subsection after the new subsection 5.1(1) of the act proposed by the bill: (1.1) The annual report shall also state, for each of the program's two components, the number of cases that were denied funding.
We're keeping the same preamble. There you go.
4:10 p.m.
Conservative
4:10 p.m.
Liberal
Marc Serré Liberal Nickel Belt, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I know we can vote on BQ‑6, but I think you skipped CPC‑6 and NDP‑2. I just want to make sure that we come back to it.
4:10 p.m.
Liberal
Marc Serré Liberal Nickel Belt, ON
What you said wasn't clear, Mr. Chair. I just wanted to make sure that we were going to come back to it, to have confirmation of that.
4:10 p.m.
Philippe Méla Clerk of the Committee
Mr. Serré, there was indeed a line conflict between amendment G‑2 and the two amendments you mentioned.
4:10 p.m.
Conservative
The Vice-Chair Conservative Kevin Waugh
Okay. Are there any other comments on BQ-6?
Seeing none, I'm going to call for the vote, please.
4:15 p.m.
Liberal
Taleeb Noormohamed Liberal Vancouver Granville, BC
I'm sorry. We just want to try to get some clarification on something before we go to the vote.
We need to get some clarification because of the order right now. I'm going to ask if we can suspend for just a minute.
4:15 p.m.
Conservative
The Vice-Chair Conservative Kevin Waugh
We'll suspend for a second.
We're going to resume. We're back on BQ-6.
Mr. Noormohamed, please.
4:15 p.m.
Liberal
Taleeb Noormohamed Liberal Vancouver Granville, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
In principle, we are in support of this. There is a subamendment that we would like to make. I've asked the team to give me the language, which would read as follows. Basically, everything would stay the same; however, where it says “the number of cases”, the word “cases” would be replaced by the word “applications”.
4:15 p.m.
Conservative
June 4th, 2024 / 4:15 p.m.
Conservative
Rachael Thomas Conservative Lethbridge, AB
Sure. I wouldn't mind understanding from the officials the significance of this change.
4:15 p.m.
Director General, Strategic Policy and International Affairs, Department of Canadian Heritage
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
As I said, I would observe that changing the language in that way would make it consistent with the current practice of the program.
At the moment, it's already possible to calculate this statistic or figure if you are talking about “applications”, as opposed to “funded cases”. The annual report on the program currently publishes the number of applications received and funded, as opposed to cases. An application generally pertains to a case, but you could potentially have multiple applications for the same case. Therefore what is published is the number of discrete applications received.
4:15 p.m.
Bloc
Martin Champoux Bloc Drummond, QC
That's fine, Mr. Chair. I think Mr. McMurren answered my question.
4:15 p.m.
Conservative
The Vice-Chair Conservative Kevin Waugh
Yes, thank you.
Is there other discussion on the subamendment?
Seeing none, I'm going to call for the vote on the subamendment by Mr. Noormohamed.
4:15 p.m.
Conservative
Rachael Thomas Conservative Lethbridge, AB
I'm sorry.
We're just voting on the subamendment. Is that correct?
4:15 p.m.
Conservative
The Vice-Chair Conservative Kevin Waugh
Yes, we're voting on “applications” instead of “cases”.
(Subamendment agreed to: yeas 7; nays 3)
(Amendment as amended agreed to: yeas 10; nays 0)
Shall clause 3 as amended carry?
(Clause 3 as amended agreed to: yeas 7; nays 3 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(On clause 4)
Shall clause 4 carry?
Mr. Serré.
4:20 p.m.
Liberal
Marc Serré Liberal Nickel Belt, ON
I would like to ask the departmental experts a question about clause 4 of Bill C‑316: Given that Bill C‑13, which received royal assent last year, already covers what clause 4 seeks to do, is clause 4 necessary?