Canadian Heritage Committee on Nov. 22nd, 2022

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Thank you, Anthony.

If no one else has their hand up, I would like to call the question on the subamendment, which is “all membership revenue generated in Canada”.

(Subamendment negatived: nays 7; yeas 4 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

Now I'm going to call the question on the original amendment, which is CPC-5.

(Amendment negatived: nays 7; yeas 4 [See Minutes of Proceedings)

Because CPC-5 does not carry, as Mr. Housefather so kindly reminded us, we now have CPC-6, CPC-7, CPC-8 and CPC-9, all of which are the identical motion, but with different monetary levels.

We're going to have to go through each one of those. Given that it's the same motion and it's just a different—

[The Clerk]

Dr. Fry, there's a point of order on the floor from Mr. Julian.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Yes, Mr. Julian.

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

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

It's customary in a case like this for the party that put forward the amendments to withdraw the other ones. We've had the substantive debate around the approach. The fact that they put in different figures is fine in terms of proposing the amendment originally, but now that we've had the discussion, I hope my colleagues would simply withdraw CPC-6, CPC-7, CPC-8 and CPC-9.

Otherwise, it would very clearly be a filibuster.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Thank you, Mr. Julian.

[The Clerk]

Dr. Fry, Ms. Gladu has her hand up.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Marilyn, go ahead.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

On the same point of order, absolutely, Mr. Julian is quite correct. We just put different dollar values in to look at different thresholds.

We agree to withdraw CPC-6, CPC-7, CPC-8 and CPC-9.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Thank you very much, Ms. Gladu.

I just wanted to point out that we have until seven minutes after the hour to deal with that, if you wish. We have, therefore, 16 minutes left.

We have a substitute. Mario Simard is subbing for Mr. Champoux for the rest of the meeting.

[The Clerk]

Dr. Fry, the substitution has not yet taken effect because Mr. Champoux is still in the room, so we are faced with the presence of two Bloc members.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Thank you.

Now that we have the removal of those amendments, the next thing we're moving to is clause 6.

Shall clause 6 carry?

(Clause 6 agreed to: yeas 7; nays 4)

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

All right, clause 6 is carried.

Now we're going to move on to proposed clause 6.1, which would be CPC-10.

Anthony, go ahead.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

On a point of order, Madam Chair, in my view, CPC-10 would now not be in order, given that subclause 6.1(4) refers to an amount provided for in clause 6 and there's no amount now provided for in clause 6.

This was dependent on one of the previous CPC amendments actually carrying. With it not having carried, in my view, this is out of order.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Shall we ask Mr. Méla to comment?

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Sure, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Mr. Méla, go ahead.

[Philippe Méla]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

It's a good remark from Mr. Housefather. Indeed, the amounts were not adopted, so maybe a subamendment could be brought forward to rectify the situation if that's at all possible.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Madam Chair, I'm so sorry to elaborate, but this entire proposed clause, as you read it, is a review regarding the amount provided for in the section. The whole substance of this amendment relates to a review of a number that doesn't exist, a report to be tabled about a number that doesn't exist, and then regulations related to a number that doesn't exist.

Mr. Méla, with due respect, I believe this should not be receivable based on the rejection of the previous amendments, as it's completely corollary to one of those being approved.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Order. Someone else is speaking. Mr. Housefather has the floor. Thank you.

Anthony, go ahead.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

I'm done.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

[Philippe Méla]

Madam Chair, if I may, I would agree with Mr. Housefather.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

So we shall not ask the question on CPC-10. It is negated.

(On clause 7)

We will now move to clause 7, CPC-11.

Is there someone from the Conservatives who wishes to move it?

[The Clerk]

Ms. Gladu has her hand up, Dr. Fry.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Marilyn, go ahead.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

Basically, this amends the language that's in the bill that provides the commission with the information it requires for the purpose of verifying compliance, which could be very broad. It could ask for anything.

The amendment says “reasonably requires”. I think it's just trying to focus in, so that if the commission needs information to verify compliance, it needs to be reasonable. It has to be related to the matter.