Canadian Heritage Committee on June 14th, 2022

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

If this amendment carries, there would be no PV-0.1; all of the other amendments will be negated if Mr. Julian's motion carries.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Could that be explained to me, please? It makes a point that's different. I understand that anything that was in conflict or negatived by my amendment would not come forward, but my amendment is compatible, not duplicative.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

I will ask Mr. Méla to tell me if that is so.

[Philippe Méla]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Ms. May, an amendment can modify only one line of the bill, so once a line has been amended, it cannot be amended a second time. In this case, the amendment of Mr. Julian would amend lines 21 to 26 and yours would amend line 25, which is right in the middle. In a sense, the line that you wanted to amend does not exist anymore, and that's why it cannot be proceeded with.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Procedurally, someone should have given me the floor before that took place.

Thank you.

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

I have a point of order, Madam Chair. My understanding was that we voted on the amendment to the amendment at this point, so we haven't passed the actual—

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Yes. I'm going to the amended motion next.

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

Yes, Madam Chair. I'm seeking clarity with respect to Ms. May's further amendment. She could still move an amendment to Mr. Julian's amendment, incorporating what she proposed. Is that correct?

I see our distinguished legislative clerk nodding at me, so it would still be appropriate for—

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Yes. She can do that. The big question is.... If she wishes to speak, it's my understanding that I would have to have unanimous consent from the floor to allow it.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

No. You passed a motion in this place, Madam Chair. I would like to speak to the motion you passed, because people have short memories. I'm cursed with a good memory.

It's a violation of my rights that I'm here at all. I would point that out, so that people understand. If not for a motion that this committee proactively decided to pass that gives me the right to speak to each motion.... I'm here under duress. I'd rather not be here.

I would have had the right, if this committee hadn't passed the motion, to present this amendment at report stage. That's a right I would have had. Every member of a party with fewer than 12 people is already deprived of many rights, such as sitting as a permanent member on committees. It's astonishing—and I would love it if you all reflected on it—that people in my position as members of Parliament start with fewer rights than people in parties with more than 12 members. The larger parties still find the number of residual rights that I may still have to be uncomfortable and, therefore, my rights should be continually reduced.

In this case, every committee—absolutely exposing the fiction that we claim committees are masters of their own process—magically passes an identical motion. Every word is the same. They have done this since around 2017. They did it after the 2019 election—actually, it was done in 2014, so after 2015, the same motion was passed in every committee. After 2019, the same motion was passed in every committee. After the 2021 election, the same motion was passed in every committee.

Those are the terms under which I am here under duress. I would rather not have had this committee pass that motion. I would present this amendment at report stage. I can't do that. I'm here now and I have the right to speak briefly to each amendment. I like to get it on the record every time I come before committee that this was not my idea of a good, fair and inclusive process to participate in the passage of legislation, which is the right and duty of every member of Parliament.

That said, Madam Chair, I would still like to pursue the point that's raised in PV-0.1 in your package, which was submitted under the terms of the motion passed by this committee. If I may, Madam Chair, I would like to speak to the point of difference between an excellent improvement that is about to be made in Bill C-11 in clause 2, but which could be improved if the committee decided it liked my amendment.

Can I proceed with that?

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Yes. Go ahead.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Okay. I'll speak briefly to this.

The community groups across Canada, whom I think we've all heard from, are very concerned that we actually protect community broadcasting. This comes from the Canadian Association of Community Television Users and Stations, the National Campus and Community Radio Association,

the Fédération des télévisions communautaires autonomes du Québec, the Alliance des radios communautaires du Canada and the Association des radiodiffuseurs communautaires du Québec.

They are very concerned that we specify that what we're talking about in this section is community broadcasting that is fully community-run.

While Mr. Julian's amendment, as further improved with Mr. Bittle's amendment, speaks to “including” not-for-profit organizations, my amendment, more in keeping with what the community broadcasters want, says that the broadcasting undertaking must be “predominantly” not-for-profit or community-owned.

It's trying to carve out very specifically that when we speak, as we do in Bill C-11, of a “community element”, we are very specifically focused on predominantly the not-for-profit sector and community-owned broadcasting.

Thank you, Madam Chair. My motion, as you know, has been.... All the things you said about how motions proceed don't apply in my case. I am not allowed to table my own motion. It has been deemed to have been tabled. I am not allowed to withdraw my amendment, should it turn out that we'd rather not have it there. I can't do that. All I can do now is speak to it. I can't vote on it. I have to ask others to please consider whether we want to listen to the voices of community broadcasting and bring this motion in as part of the current package that's about to go to a vote.

Thank you very much, everyone.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Thank you very much, Ms. May.

I was just about to call on Mr. Méla to ask if he sees any conflict in Ms. May's amendment to the amendment.

[Philippe Méla]

No, Madam Chair, but I would need Ms. May to tell me where it fits and where the subamendment would be incorporated.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

No one provided me with a copy of the subamendment that was just before the committee, so I have a hard time visualizing where I'd put it.

[Philippe Méla]

You have not received the package?

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

No. I'm not a member of the committee. I'm here under duress, because of the motion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Could Ms. May be given the amendment so that she can see where it fits, please, just for the sake of clarity?

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I would oppose the inclusion of the subamendment, because “day-to-day”, from the interpretation that we've had, would exclude the volunteer operations.

Regardless of whether or not there is a way of putting it on the table, I'll be voting against. I think volunteer operations should be included, and they are currently. Including this subamendment presumably would threaten the volunteer operations.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Thank you, Mr. Julian.

Has Ms. May been able to tell us where this fits?

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

I'm sorry, Madam Chair. I've not been provided a copy of the subamendment from Mr. Bittle.

[The Clerk of the Committee, Mr. Andrew Wilson]

Ms. May, it has been sent to you by email.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Yes, I have it now by email. For some reason, I thought there would be a paper copy available, but I have it by email.

I understand Mr. Julian's point. I would propose that it read, “community element includes the element of the Canadian broadcasting system as part of which members of a community participate in the production of programs that are in a language used in the community, including a predominantly not-for-profit or community-owned broadcasting undertaking that is managed by a board of directors elected by the community”.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Méla, have you received that?

[Philippe Méla]

No, actually, I was dealing with something else.

I need to call you, if we could suspend for a few minutes.