Canadian Heritage Committee on June 2nd, 2022

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

This is debate. This is not a point of order.

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

This is a point of order. This is what was discussed. The motion is valid. It doesn't need to be put in writing.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Madam Chair, I would appeal to you for orderly conduct in this meeting. This is debate.

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

Madam Chair, there's a point of order on the point of order.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Order, please.

I'm not allowing debate across every party line on this thing. Let's get some order.

Mr. Patzer asked for a copy of the motion Mr. Bittle put forward, the one we are debating. Mr. Bittle is suggesting the motion is already clear. I, as chair, would suggest that Mr. Bittle repeat his motion and that we have no more questioning about what the motion is. Everyone obviously knows the motion, as Mr. Bittle rightly pointed out. This was the motion we dealt with yesterday and the day before.

I think we need to clarify. Mr. Bittle, please restate your motion in English and French. Thank you.

I will not allow any more points of order on this.

Go ahead, Mr. Bittle.

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

Thank you so much, Madam Chair.

That's why we have simultaneous translation. I won't offend Monsieur Champoux's ears trying to struggle through the French. The motion, which Mr. Julian brought yesterday, which we debated for an hour yesterday, and which this committee approved—I am taking it from the table—is that the deadline for clause-by-clause be Friday at 4 p.m.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

That is eastern time.

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

Oh, I'm sorry, not the deadline for clause-by-clause. It's the deadline for submitting amendments to be Friday.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

It's at four eastern time, I gather, if I remember Mr. Julian's motion correctly.

We will go back to debate. Mrs. Thomas is next, I think.

Mr. Patzer, have you finished?

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

I'm sorry. I appreciate that Mr. Bittle spoke the record, but I was hoping he would take two seconds to send an email, so I would have it in front of me.

I see that the minister is here now. I'm wondering if we should proceed to hearing from the minister, at this point in time—that we move to adjourn this debate so we can hear from the minister.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

We have a motion on the floor, and the motion to adjourn this debate was voted on recently—just now, a few minutes ago—and was denied. We can't move that motion again, Mr. Patzer. Therefore, we will continue this debate.

The minister may be here, but this session is due to end at 4:48, so we still have time in this session. Thank you.

Please continue, Mrs. Thomas. You had your hand up.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

A decision wasn't reached yesterday as to whether or not a copy of this motion would be provided in writing. There have been other instances at this committee where you have deemed it necessary to provide that. I'm unsure why that is a protocol or a practice at some of these meetings when some motions are moved, but not at others.

For example, a couple of days ago, I moved a motion at this committee and I was asked to provide it in writing, which I was able to do. I was also able to provide it in both official languages without a problem. It was promptly given to each member around this table and we were able to move forward with debate.

In the same way, my colleague Mr. Patzer is sitting in on this committee as a substitute, so he has not seen the amendment and is not familiar with the debate that took place yesterday. He has put forward a very reasonable request, which is that this motion be made available to him in writing.

Further to that and why it is so necessary, I listened to Mr. Bittle work his way through some part of the motion, or rendition of the motion, and then Mr. Julian did the same. It is unclear to me and, I believe, to others exactly what this motion is.

I would appeal to you to please be consistent. If this is something that is expected at some committee meetings with some motions, I believe that it needs to be asked for in all committee meetings and for all motions.

Madam Chair, I am not done.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Mrs. Thomas, you asked me a question. May I be allowed to answer it, please?

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Yes. I'm finishing that question, Madam Chair. Give me one moment.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

I would ask you, then, to make sure that the same protocols are followed here that you've asked for at other meetings.

I will allow you to respond, but I would like to note that I currently have the floor.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Go ahead.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

I will respond.

There is no need, because the issue that we are discussing in the order of business is Bill C-11. The motion pertains to Bill C-11. There is no need to give 48 hours' notice in both languages for this. When a motion is simple—and it is my understanding that this is a very simple, a one-sentence motion.... Most people will understand what it is by now, because this is going to be the third time we're hearing this motion.

When a motion is very long and complicated, it is necessary for people to read it, because they may not understand everything that has been said. As a chair, I make that decision based on the complexity and length of the motion, as opposed to a very short and simple motion that we are now hearing for the fourth time.

Thank you.

Please continue, Mrs. Thomas.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Madam Chair, I understand the words of your ruling. However, I would like to highlight a couple of things.

First, the motion is still unclear to me and to my colleagues who are subbed in at this meeting, so greater clarity is, in fact, required if we are expected to vote on this. It is improper and undemocratic to expect us to vote on something that is not clearly stated. Of course, the written language is what assists us best in that way.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

On a point of order, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Yes. Mr. Champoux has a point of order.

Then I'm going to ask the clerk to read the motion. She has it right now in the minutes of this meeting. If she could read it—

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Madam Chair, I have just raised a point of order. Will you let me finish?

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Go ahead, Mr. Champoux.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Thank you.

I hear my colleague Ms. Thomas, and even though we differ on a lot of things, I can't imagine for a second that this little sentence is not clear in her mind and that it needs so much clarification.

Her colleague Mr. Patzer himself said earlier that the minister had arrived and that we wanted to ask him questions. We have witnesses here to whom we also want to ask questions. We have a very simple motion before us, which simply states that the deadline for tabling amendments is Friday at 4 p.m. Eastern Standard Time. My goodness, my colleague is not doing herself any favours by asking for clarification on this.

I am appealing to the common sense of my conservative colleagues, out of respect for the witnesses who are here today to answer important questions on Bill C-11, so that we can put to a vote the motion that has been tabled and finally move on.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Thank you, Mr. Champoux.

There is a call for the vote, which Mr. Champoux has asked for. Once again, we are asking for this motion to come to the floor and be voted on. I need to know if there is a majority approval for that in this meeting.

Is anyone opposed to this motion's coming to a vote now?

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Madam Chair, there is still a list of speakers who need to be heard from before you can call a vote.