Evidence of meeting #30 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 video is available from Parliament.
6:35 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Hedy Fry
You know that his name is Housefather, Mr. Perkins.
The challenge that was before yours was Mr. Housefather's. There is no debate on Mr. Housefather's challenge. He said he challenged me because he felt that my ruling on your amendment was not...your amendment was not clear about which minister.
Let's call the vote on that.
I'm sorry, Clerk. You had your hand up.
6:35 p.m.
Legislative Clerk
Just to clarify, if I understand this correctly, Madam Chair, whether the debate resumed or not, I believe you ruled the subamendment admissible. Mr. Housefather, after reading the written copy of the subamendment, challenged your decision on that ruling. In this case, there should be no debate and we should proceed to a vote.
The question is whether the decision of the chair be sustained. Should the decision of the chair to rule the subamendment admissible be sustained?
Is that correct?
6:35 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Hedy Fry
I think that is very correct.
Thank you very much, Clerk. You can proceed.
(Ruling of the chair overturned: nays 7; yeas 4)
6:35 p.m.
Legislative Clerk
We go back to debate on the amendment, or you open the floor again.
6:35 p.m.
Conservative
Rick Perkins Conservative South Shore—St. Margarets, NS
I'm sorry, that's incorrect.
I was debating Mrs. Thomas's amendment. I had the floor when I proposed a subamendment. I believe I still have the floor.
6:40 p.m.
Conservative
Rick Perkins Conservative South Shore—St. Margarets, NS
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Now we're back on the amendment as I understand it, which is the amendment to have the time for amendments to Bill C-11 extended to three days before clause-by-clause.
As I was saying, the reason we should be doing this is to allow for the time. I appreciate that other parties are willing to look at submitting their amendments before the list of witnesses were expired. We believe there is an opportunity and we need time as a party to prepare the appropriate amendments to a very complex bill on an important piece of legislation—the Broadcasting Act—which is not being reviewed by Parliament nor had a major amendment in 31 years, as I understand it.
The ability by the government and its dance partner, the NDP, to rush this through is a difficult situation that doesn't allow the opposition to do its due diligence, which needs to be done on behalf of Canadians to consider the appropriate amendments to the bill.
6:40 p.m.
Liberal
Chris Bittle Liberal St. Catharines, ON
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I know Mr. Perkins is new to this committee, but we've been through five weeks' worth of committee meetings. The government has not rushed through anything. We are a minority government. We cannot rush through anything on our own. I know he's a new MP and new to this committee today, but I think the record should make that straight.
6:40 p.m.
Conservative
Rick Perkins Conservative South Shore—St. Margarets, NS
This is a point of debate.
The disingenuous comments by the parliamentary secretary with regard to.... Well, it's both disingenuous and rude.
6:40 p.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC
I would certainly challenge Mr. Perkins on relevance. He's being repetitive already and, of course, factually incorrect—
June 2nd, 2022 / 6:40 p.m.
Conservative
6:40 p.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC
There's been the equivalent of five weeks of parliamentary hearings. Many of them were disrupted by the Conservatives.
6:40 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Hedy Fry
Excuse me. I am going to have to call order to this meeting.
Mr. Julian is on the floor with a point of order. I cannot hear a word he's saying because somebody else is speaking. Please mute your mikes when you are not speaking.
6:40 p.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC
Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
I appreciate your bringing the very unruly Conservatives to order. They've disrupted these hearings repeatedly and filibustered through so that we've been unable to hear witnesses. I think it's fair to say the five weeks we all agreed to, the five-week equivalent of hearings, is something that could have been used more effectively if the Conservatives hadn't repeatedly sabotaged those hearings. However, I do question Mr. Perkins both on relevance and on repetition. He doesn't seem to be speaking to the motion on the table.
6:40 p.m.
Conservative
Rick Perkins Conservative South Shore—St. Margarets, NS
Well, I appreciate that the deputy government House leader has given me about two minutes to speak on this amendment, but it's pretty hard to believe that I had repetition.
That being the case, Madam Chair—
6:40 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Hedy Fry
Mr. Perkins, I would like to bring some respect to this particular meeting. There has been a great deal of disrespect in this meeting and no order being kept. I would like to suggest that rather than referring to your colleague with any kind of pejorative statement, you perhaps just stick to saying “Mr. Julian”? That's who he is, the member of the NDP. Let's not go into the sort of negativity that continues to happen in this committee. I don't like it. It's not appropriate.
6:40 p.m.
Conservative
Rick Perkins Conservative South Shore—St. Margarets, NS
I appreciate that, Madam Chair.
In order to address Mr. Julian's concern, therefore, I'm willing to propose another subamendment to add clarity at the end of the motion, to say “the time for amendments be extended until we've had an opportunity to hear from the Minister of Canadian Heritage and department officials”.
