Evidence of meeting #93 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 cbc.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Noon
Conservative
Rachael Thomas Conservative Lethbridge, AB
It's a point of order.
Madam Chair, I just asked you.... I gave you the opportunity. I'm inviting you to help us understand your ruling. That is far from assuming—
Noon
Conservative
Rachael Thomas Conservative Lethbridge, AB
I am inviting your voice. I am inviting the chair to give a reason for her ruling.
Noon
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Hedy Fry
I intend to do that, Ms. Thomas, but you also had to add the spurious piece that said I'm disrespecting the committee. I don't think that we need to do these things at committees, in the House or anywhere. Let's treat each other with some respect. You are presuming that I am intending to disrespect the way—
Noon
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Hedy Fry
Don't. Please don't.
Now, for me, I think that I agree with Mr. Julian's and Mr. Noormohamed's comments that what we have done here.... What has been put in this that I didn't think was fitting or was appropriate was that it removed Meta platforms, first and foremost, and it did not—
Noon
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Hedy Fry
Ms. Thomas, we are not having debate, you and I.
I am speaking. Please allow me to finish.
Noon
Conservative
Noon
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Hedy Fry
Thank you.
In the second one, it removed Meta platforms. In the third bullet, it just mentioned Meta and Google receive money, but it does not say that Meta should be summoned, which was in Mr. Julian's amendment, so I think it changes the whole tone and meaning of the amendment that Mr. Julian made, and that was my reasoning for suggesting that he was out of order.
Thank you.
Noon
Conservative
Rachael Thomas Conservative Lethbridge, AB
I'm sorry; I think Kevin Waugh has a point of order first.
Noon
Conservative
Kevin Waugh Conservative Saskatoon—Grasswood, SK
I'm sorry, Madam Chair, but it clearly states that the committee invite Rachel Curran. It's right there, the head of public policy for Meta Canada. I disagree with your ruling here. I have it right here that the committee invite Rachel Curran, head of public policy, Meta Canada, to come before the committee. Then I go on to talk about the CBC, but it's right there.
12:05 p.m.
Liberal
Taleeb Noormohamed Liberal Vancouver Granville, BC
Madam Chair, the decision of the chair is not debatable. They are welcome, Madam Chair, to challenge the ruling. Chapter 20 of the green book states that the decisions of the chair are not debatable. They can, however, be appealed to the committee. The member knows the process to appeal a decision by the chair: Inform the committee of the intent, and the chair calls the question. That is the process.
If that is indeed the desire, I think the committee should entertain that request, but we are right now doing something that is entirely wasting the valuable time of this committee.
12:05 p.m.
Liberal
12:05 p.m.
Bloc
Martin Champoux Bloc Drummond, QC
Yes, Madam Chair.
I find the discussions we are currently having interesting, but I would like us to tone it down a bit. It's obvious that you and Ms. Thomas will probably not be at the same Christmas party this year.
12:05 p.m.
Some hon. members
Ha, ha!
12:05 p.m.
Bloc
Martin Champoux Bloc Drummond, QC
The fact remains that the issues raised by Ms. Thomas and Mr. Waugh are entirely legitimate, Madam Chair. I am also curious as to why you are ruling the subamendment out of order. With all due respect, I am also a bit confused.
What was in Mr. Julian's amendment is also in Mr. Waugh's subamendment. Earlier, I asked you a question about the admissibility of Mr. Julian's amendment, as that amendment greatly broadened the scope of Ms. Thomas' motion. You replied that it respected the spirit of the motion and that it simply broadened the scope of the study.
We now have exactly the same parameters. Yes, some information has been changed, but I don't think that's enough to rule the subamendment out of order. I must admit that I do not understand. I am not taking a position on the subamendment; I am simply saying that, in addition to the ongoing tensions in this committee, there may be a bit of education to be done. I would find it interesting to hear the arguments on this without us going for each others' throats.
I think that, in this case, the arguments that Mr. Waugh presented to you deserve to have you reconsider your decision or to explain it a little more specifically. Thank you.
12:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Hedy Fry
Thank you, Martin.
I was just responding to the way in which Ms. Thomas posed her question for me to explain. She decided that I was disrespectful of the committee without having allowed me to even explain.
I made my explanation, as you heard. Mr. Waugh disagreed, and pointed out to me that he had in fact wanted Meta to come in and didn't completely remove it, so I think I will pay attention to what Mr. Waugh said and agree with him on that. What I would ask is that we then go to Mr. Noormohamed, who I think was asking us to vote on the subamendment.
I have Mrs. Thomas.
12:05 p.m.
Conservative
Rachael Thomas Conservative Lethbridge, AB
Madam Chair, there has been no motion moved to go to a vote on this, and we do have a speaking list. I am one of the individuals on it.
12:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Hedy Fry
I'm sorry. Yes, Mrs. Thomas, go ahead. You're speaking on the subamendment. Then Ms. Gladu is.
Is there anyone else who wants to speak on the subamendment? No? Martin, or Peter Julian...?
All right. We'll go to Mrs. Thomas.