CHPC Committee Meeting

     Hello, everyone. I'm going to call the meeting to order here this afternoon. Welcome to meeting number 122 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage. I would like to acknowledge that this meeting is taking place on the unceded traditional territory of the Algonquin Anishinabe people.

    Pursuant to the order of reference on Wednesday, November 22, 2023, the committee is resuming its consideration of Bill C-316, an act to amend the Department of Canadian Heritage Act respecting the court challenges program).

    Before we begin, I would like to ask all members to consult the cards on the table for guidelines to prevent audio feedback. Take note of the following preventive measures in place to protect the health and safety of participants. Use only the black approved earpiece. The former grey ones are no longer in use. Always keep your earpiece away from the microphones, and when you're not using your earpiece, please place it face down on the sticker placed on the table for this purpose. Thank you for your co-operation.

    Today we're going to look at Bill C-316, an act to amend the Canadian Heritage Act regarding the CCP. We welcome back our witnesses from the Department of Canadian Heritage, who are available once again to answer our questions on clause-by-clause. We have Blair McMurren, director general.

    Welcome back, Mr. McMurren.

    As well, for the first time, we have Ms. Labbé, manager of human rights.

    Welcome to the committee.

    We will resume debate on Ms. Rachael Thomas's subamendment to amendment G-2. That's where we're going to pick it up today.

    Ms. Thomas, if you don't mind, could you lead us off on the subamendment to G-2?

     Sure. Thank you, Chair. I appreciate the floor.

    Just before I get to that, I wish to give notice of a motion that I'll be tabling here at committee. It shouldn't come as a surprise. On Sunday, we had a historic event take place, and that was game six between the Edmonton Oilers and the Dallas Stars. Of course, the winning team would go on to compete for the Stanley Cup, which is quite a great achievement. That winning team was the Edmonton Oilers, the Canadian team that will represent us as we go for that cup. Should we be successful, it will be the first time in more than 30 years, which is quite exciting.

    Canadians tuned in to the CBC in hopes that they would be able to watch the game there, but unfortunately they were not able to, because it was not made available. The CBC is a public broadcaster. It's paid for with tax money, so for Canadians to be forced to subscribe in order to access that game seemed altogether inappropriate.

    The motion that I'm giving notice of reads as follows:

     This motion is now on notice at committee. Thank you.

    (On clause 3)

     Thank you, Ms. Thomas. As I said earlier, we're going to stay with you on the subamendment to G-2, and you're up.

     That's perfect. Awesome. Where we left off last day, I understand, was with a subamendment to amendment G-2 having been moved to replace lines 26 to 28 in clause 3. I believe I already read it into the record, but, again, we would insert “and financial performance of the program, as well as a list of all the cases that received funding and the amount provided for each case”. It would end there, and that, of course, would be inserted into amendment G-2 as amended.

    The reason for this is that we want a list of all cases, to create greater accountability and transparency, and we want to know the amount of money provided to each of those cases, also to provide greater accountability and transparency. These were things that numerous witnesses called for around the court challenges program. They wanted to see a greater degree of accountability being achieved and wanted to see greater transparency with the Canadian public in terms of how tax dollars are used with regard to funding cases or not funding cases. Of course there are others that are “ixnayed”, so I would be seeking the support of committee members in order to make sure that this is accomplished.

     Thank you.

    Ms. Coteau.

    Oh, Mr. Coteau.

     Thank you, sir.

    I just wanted to make it—

    Voices: Oh, oh!

    I get “Michelle” and “Ms. Coteau”. That's fine.

    To the officials, what is the purpose of holding back some of those details the subamendment would reveal? Is there a reason for it?

    I believe you addressed some of this at the last meeting. Maybe you could take a minute to explain.

    The current practice of the modernized program—as we've attempted to explain at different moments, and I think as the executive director of the program also explained during her testimony—is to try to achieve a balance between transparency, on the one hand, and respect of what you could describe as litigation privilege or solicitor-client privilege, or simply personal privacy, security and safety, on the other hand, of end recipients of the program funding. For that reason, the specific amounts and the names of recipients are not published in any format, currently.

    What's envisioned, once they've exhausted all avenues of appeal, is a publication of the case names and the outcomes of those cases.

     Are there cases in which the information is revealed because there is agreement that it's in the public interest to provide that information?

    Currently, that's not the practice. It would be at the discretion of an end recipient of program funding to reveal that kind of information. It's not disclosed through the reporting of the modernized program or through the contribution agreement that governs it.

     Okay. Thank you so much.

     Okay, Michael.

    We're going to move to Mr. Champoux.

    I'll be very brief, Mr. Chair.

    To refresh the memory of my colleagues around the table, we discussed this Conservative subamendment at length at the last meeting. I was under the impression that we had reached the stage where we had to vote. It seems to me that the ideas had been expressed on both sides and that the questions had all been asked.

    That's just a comment. Personally, I'm ready to proceed with the vote, unless someone else has questions, of course.

     Are there any more questions?

    Seeing none, we'll have a vote on the subamendment to G-2 by Mrs. Thomas.

    (Subamendment negatived: nays 6; yeas 4 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

    The Vice-Chair (Mr. Kevin Waugh): Now we'll go to amendment G-2.

    I remind you that if G-2 is adopted, BQ-4, CPC-6 and NDP-2 cannot then be moved, due to a line conflict.

    Is there any further discussion on G-2?

    (Amendment as amended agreed to: yeas 6; nays 4)

    The Vice-Chair (Mr. Kevin Waugh): Now we go to BQ-5, I believe. If BQ-5 is adopted, I'll say once again that CPC-6 cannot be moved, due to a line conflict.

    Mr. Champoux, do you want to speak to BQ-5?

    Mr. Chair, I think my colleagues understand the principle of BQ‑5. We're all talking about transparency, accountability, and being able to do a proper and as fair an analysis as possible of how the program is being managed. In our case, it's absolutely not a matter of trying to obtain information that could be prejudicial to the applicant, but of having a little more transparency on the way this program is managed.

    With that, I'll stop here, because I want us to move quickly to a vote. However, if my colleagues have any questions, I'm obviously ready to answer them.

     Are there any questions on BQ-5?

    (Amendment negatived: nays 6; yeas 4 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

    The Vice-Chair (Mr. Kevin Waugh): We'll move on now to BQ-6.

    Again, Mr. Champoux, if you have a few seconds....

    I had CPC‑6 instead, Mr. Chair. However, if you want to discuss BQ‑6, we're ready.

     I had CPC-6....

     That's what he just said.

    No, we just did BQ-5.

    Ms. Rachael Thomas: No.

    The Vice-Chair (Mr. Kevin Waugh): Did we not? We just did BQ-5.

    Before that, we did CPC-6.

    A voice: There was a subamendment.

    Yes, we did your subamendment to G-2. Then we went to G-2.

     Then we went to BQ-5, and now I'm moving down to.... Because of G-2, we had BQ-4, CPC-6 and NDP-2 that couldn't be moved due to a line conflict.

    Exactly.

     We're at BQ-6 on page 16.

    Mr. Champoux.

    Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    Once again, the purpose of BQ‑6 is to allow for more transparency. Without necessarily getting into the details that identify the applicants, we would like to have a little more transparency, as I was saying, particularly on the number of cases that were not accepted under the program. We propose that the Department of Canadian Heritage Act be amended by adding the following subsection after the new subsection 5.1(1) of the act proposed by the bill:

    We're keeping the same preamble. There you go.

     Thank you.

    Mr. Serré, do you have a comment?

    Thank you, Mr. Chair. I know we can vote on BQ‑6, but I think you skipped CPC‑6 and NDP‑2. I just want to make sure that we come back to it.

    There was a line conflict.

    What you said wasn't clear, Mr. Chair. I just wanted to make sure that we were going to come back to it, to have confirmation of that.

     Go ahead, Clerk.

    Mr. Serré, there was indeed a line conflict between amendment G‑2 and the two amendments you mentioned.

     Okay. Are there any other comments on BQ-6?

    Seeing none, I'm going to call for the vote, please.

    I'm sorry. We just want to try to get some clarification on something before we go to the vote.

    We need to get some clarification because of the order right now. I'm going to ask if we can suspend for just a minute.

    We'll suspend for a second.

    The Vice-Chair (Mr. Kevin Waugh): We're going to resume. We're back on BQ-6.

    Mr. Noormohamed, please.

    Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    In principle, we are in support of this. There is a subamendment that we would like to make. I've asked the team to give me the language, which would read as follows. Basically, everything would stay the same; however, where it says “the number of cases”, the word “cases” would be replaced by the word “applications”.

     Are there any comments on the subamendment?

    Mrs. Thomas.

     Sure. I wouldn't mind understanding from the officials the significance of this change.

     Thank you, Mr. Chair.

     As I said, I would observe that changing the language in that way would make it consistent with the current practice of the program.

    At the moment, it's already possible to calculate this statistic or figure if you are talking about “applications”, as opposed to “funded cases”. The annual report on the program currently publishes the number of applications received and funded, as opposed to cases. An application generally pertains to a case, but you could potentially have multiple applications for the same case. Therefore what is published is the number of discrete applications received.

    We'll move to Mr. Champoux.

    That's fine, Mr. Chair. I think Mr. McMurren answered my question.

     Yes, thank you.

    Is there other discussion on the subamendment?

    Seeing none, I'm going to call for the vote on the subamendment by Mr. Noormohamed.

    I'm sorry.

    We're just voting on the subamendment. Is that correct?

    Yes, we're voting on “applications” instead of “cases”.

    (Subamendment agreed to: yeas 7; nays 3)

    (Amendment as amended agreed to: yeas 10; nays 0)

    The Vice-Chair (Mr. Kevin Waugh): Shall clause 3 as amended carry?

    (Clause 3 as amended agreed to: yeas 7; nays 3 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

    (On clause 4)

    The Vice-Chair (Mr. Kevin Waugh): Shall clause 4 carry?

    Mr. Serré.

    I would like to ask the departmental experts a question about clause 4 of Bill C‑316: Given that Bill C‑13, which received royal assent last year, already covers what clause 4 seeks to do, is clause 4 necessary?

     Mr. McMurren, go ahead.

    Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    Indeed, as officials, we see a potential problem with the transitional provision, especially toward the end, which might suggest that there wasn't the necessary authority at the time to establish the former versions of the Court Challenges Program. As we understand it, the goal seems to be to anchor the program in a new provision of the Department of Canadian Heritage Act. However, we think the government and the ministers at the time had all the authority they needed to establish the former versions of the program.

    It's a bit of a fine legal point, but our perspective is that duly elected governments and ministers of the day had the authority under, among other things, the Department of Canadian Heritage Act to establish former iterations of the court challenges program. The transitional provision here could give the unintended suggestion that there was no authority previously to establish the program when, in fact, there was. It's suggesting that it's anchored in the new paragraph 5(a.1) of the act when, in fact, there was legislative authority for previous governments and ministers to establish the program.

    We just want to avoid a bad suggestion. It may be a small point, but that's our legal view as public servants.

    Mr. Chair, after the comments we just heard, do we need to vote on this clause or can we just say it's unnecessary?

     I'll ask Mr. Méla.

    Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    Mr. Serré, if you feel that the provision is no longer necessary and you want to remove it, you have to vote against it.

    If that is the will of the committee, we will have a vote to eliminate—

     Go ahead, Mr. Champoux.

    Mr. Chair, first of all, I'd like to clarify one detail.

    Mr. Méla, our amendment BQ‑7 proposes to create a new clause, clause 4.1. If clause 4 is defeated, will clause 4.1 simply be renumbered, or will it be defeated at the same time as clause 4?

    Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    Mr. Champoux, clause 4 and clause 4.1 are two separate clauses, and one has no impact on the other.

    Shall clause 4 carry?

    (Clause 4 negatived: nays 10; yeas 0 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

    The Vice-Chair (Mr. Kevin Waugh): Mr. Champoux, we're at amendment BQ-7, proposing a new clause 4.1.

    Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

    I'm quite happy to add an entirely new clause to this bill. This clause is interesting, but above all very important, given that Quebec is a nation and that it makes choices that are different from those of the Canadian nation in a number of areas where the state intervenes. The proposal made by the Bloc Québécois is a serious one, and I therefore invite my colleagues to think about it seriously.

    Our proposal will make it possible to solve a problem that concerns the distinct nature of Quebec, as well as respect for the sovereignty of the National Assembly in all areas under its jurisdiction. Since the Court Challenges Program affects a number of areas of jurisdiction of the National Assembly of Quebec, we feel it is entirely appropriate to adopt this new clause 4.1, which proposes that:

    I admit that this is a bold request. However, if we think about it objectively, I believe that everyone will recognize that this proposal is consistent with the fact that the Quebec nation and its distinct character have been recognized a few times by the House of Commons itself. So that's the motivation behind BQ‑7.

    So I invite you to put it to a vote right away and to pass it.

     Thank you.

    Mr. Serré, go ahead, please.

    Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    Amendment BQ‑7 requires the minister to enter into a specific arrangement with the Government of Quebec regarding the Court Challenges Program.

    I don't remember which motion it was, but another proposal was ruled out of order on the grounds that the program cannot apply to a specific province but must apply to Canada as a whole. If there were other amendments that were ruled out of order because they applied to a particular province, I'm wondering if that is the case with this amendment as well.

    It's a national program, so I just wanted to clarify that.

    Thank you.

    We'll have Mr. Méla.

    Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    Mr. Serré, the provision is a little different here. It simply asks that the minister contact the Government of Quebec to propose possible arrangements. Ultimately, it's not necessarily related to what's in the bill, but rather to arrangements that could be made outside the bill, while respecting its application, of course.

    Thank you, Mr. Méla.

    Mr. McMurren, if we proceed in this way with the program, will that set a precedent? Will we have to negotiate with a province in the case of another national program? What's your opinion on that?

    Thank you.

    This amendment would add an administrative complexity to the program, which could compromise its timely implementation. It could also have an impact on access to the program for various—

    Mr. Chair, I have a point of order.

    I'm sorry to interrupt Mr. McMurren, since we're currently dealing with Mr. Serré's question, but, with all due respect to Mr. McMurren, I think there's a bit of extrapolation here. Since we're only talking about establishing a framework agreement, I think it's a bit premature to conclude that this measure would complicate the application and accessibility of the act. I think that a framework agreement can take into account all these concerns and that we cannot conclude here that this amendment would complicate the process.

     Mr. Serré, if you are done, I will move on.

    Yes, it will add an administrative burden that could lengthen the applicants' process. Obviously, it's relative. It would still be an administrative burden if we ever added that we had to negotiate an agreement with a province, because negotiating is negotiating. It could have a negative impact if a province objects to an applicant.

    With all due respect, Mr. Champoux, I would like us to let the witness finish his answer. I'd like to hear from Mr. McMurren on that.

    Okay.

    Mr. McMurren, please continue.

    Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    I want to acknowledge the objective behind the amendment. However, we're wondering if this could add a dimension of administrative complexity that could have an impact, not only on the one‑time application of the program, but also on the access of various minority communities in Quebec to the program.

     Ms. Lattanzio.

     Thank you, Mr. Chair. My question will be directed to Mr. McMurren.

    We understand this needs to be an independent program. Would this amendment not go against the program's nature and objectives in being subservient to the will of any province, whether it be Quebec or any other, in your opinion?

     I wonder if I would characterize it as being “subservient” to a certain province.

    I think we're more concerned with simply the timely administration of the program and, as I mentioned, the potential obstacles this could create for different minority communities in Quebec jurisdictions in accessing the program. That would be more our concern than what was being discussed.

     If the impediment is on an administrative level, would incorporating this language still not be regarded as a negative or a problem, if I can address it as such?

     I have to confess that it's a question I hadn't thought about from exactly this perspective.

     We're well aware that provinces have different perspectives on the program and their own interests in terms of the laws, policies and programs they implement in their jurisdictions. We don't consider it to be untoward that there are these different perspectives.

    To restate it, I think our concern at the end of the day would be more around the administrative impacts and potential impacts on access within a particular jurisdiction in which this kind of agreement was required in order to deliver funding to recipients.

    Mr. Champoux.

    Mr. Chair, I've heard some people say that they're afraid that this will complicate the process and that it will delay or complicate access to the program.

    We recognize Quebec as a nation, and we recognize that Quebec has legal traditions that are distinct from those of Canada. We aren't just talking about a regional distinction, we're talking about the recognition of a distinct nation, with distinct legal traditions, values that are unique to it, and a number of areas of jurisdiction that fall exclusively under the jurisdiction of the National Assembly of Quebec.

    We're not putting obstacles in the way of the program. We've said many times that we think the Court Challenges Program is a good program, if it's administered properly and if it's intended for the right clientele. So we don't want to prevent people from accessing the program, quite the contrary. We don't want to prevent people from having access to the courts and all the means by which they can challenge laws that they feel are discriminatory.

    However, we think it's relevant, in the case of Quebec, to establish guidelines during negotiations. We don't impose them, we're not banging our fists on the table, but we want the Minister of Canadian Heritage and the Government of Quebec to negotiate these guidelines, particularly to recognize that the federal government won't go in a certain direction in a given situation if it falls under Quebec's jurisdiction.

    Once the negotiations have been completed and concluded, there's no reason why this would delay the administration of the program and impede access to the program for anyone in Quebec and Canada. It's simply a matter of being consistent with the fact that the House of Commons has recognized, on more than one occasion, that Quebec forms a nation, with different values and different legal traditions. In our opinion, adding a framework agreement to such a program, which has an impact on Quebec's jurisdictions, values and legal distinctions, is not at all exaggerated or far‑fetched.

    I'll leave it there, Mr. Chair.

     Are there any other comments on BQ-7 as discussed?

    (Amendment negatived: nays 8; yeas 2 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

    The Vice-Chair (Mr. Kevin Waugh): Shall the short title carry?

    Some hon. members: Agreed.

    The Vice-Chair (Mr. Kevin Waugh): We move on now to BQ-8.

    Mr. Champoux, I'll have you move this first. Then I will have some words to say on it.

    Mr. Chair, I move amendment BQ‑8. I will wait for your comments before arguing about the amendment.

     Thank you very much.

    The amendment seeks to make a substantive modification by adding new elements to the preamble.

    As House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, states on page 774:

    In the opinion of the chair, the proposed amendment is substantive and is therefore inadmissible. That's the ruling on BQ-8.

    Mr. Martin Champoux: You're tough.

    The Vice-Chair (Mr. Kevin Waugh): Well, I'm not tough, but that's....

    Voices: Oh, oh!

    The Vice-Chair (Mr. Kevin Waugh): We are now on BQ-9.

    Again, I need you to move this.

    It's a set-up.

    Voices: Oh, oh!

    I feel like I'm walking to the scaffold.

     Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

     Mr. Martin Champoux: Mr. Chair, I'm proud to move amendment BQ‑9, which talks about recognizing French as the official language of Quebec.

    Thank you very much.

    The amendment seeks to make a substantive modification by adding new elements to the preamble.

    Again, as House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, states on page 774, “In the case of a bill that has been referred to committee after second reading—

    Mr. Martin Champoux: Suspense.

    The Vice-Chair (Mr. Kevin Waugh): Suspense? Good.

    In the opinion of the chair, the proposed amendment is substantive and is therefore inadmissible.

    Now we go to G-3.

    I will turn it over to Mr. Noormohamed.

     Thank you, Mr. Chair.

     I would like to bring this forward as amendment G-3, if I might.

     Yes.

     I would like to amend Bill C-316 in the preamble by replacing lines 13 and 14 on page 1 with the following:

    Are there any comments on this?

    Is it admissible?

     It says here that, if asked, the amendment is admissible, since G-1 was adopted.

    Mrs. Thomas.

    Through you, Chair, to the officials, the amendment would delete “for Canadians”:

    What is the significance of taking out “for Canadians”? What does it do?

    Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    This amendment would explicitly clarify that access to funding through the court challenges program is not limited to legal citizens, Canadians. The basis of the modernized program is in, effectively, charter rights that apply to everyone in Canada, including non-permanent residents and other classes of people, regardless of their citizenship status.

    Some charter rights do apply only to legal citizens, such as the right to vote and the right to enter and leave the country, but the rights covered by the modernized program apply to all people in Canada. This amendment would seek to reflect that, given that the program's eligibility tracks with that situation.

     I think that could have been a quorum call. It wasn't a vote. It could have been a quorum call, because the lights are off.

    Go ahead, Mrs. Thomas.

    Thank you.

    Certainly, charter rights apply to those who are citizens and non-citizens alike. The Court Challenges Program is money put aside by Canadian taxpayers, essentially used to challenge the Government of Canada and the rulings made there.

    Potentially, then, what this would do is say that non-citizens have the right to access those Canadian tax funds put aside for the Court Challenges Program to challenge the Canadian government with regard to decisions it has made.

    Is that correct?

    Given the nature of charter rights, this amendment would outline the way the program works with the charter it's based on. Eligibility for the program is based on certain charter rights. Given that they apply regardless of citizenship status, we would observe that the reference to Canadians here might not be completely appropriate and is possibly misleading. Maybe that's too strong, but it is not apt, we would think.

    Again, through the chair, the Court Challenges Program has nothing to do with whether or not the charter applies to citizens or non-citizens. The Court Challenges Program has to do with how taxpayer money is used to pay for cases.

    I would respond that applications are received and considered by the program based on the charter rights that are being invoked by the applicants. Given that those apply regardless of citizenship status, it's effectively how the program runs.

    I take the point in terms of public funds and Canadian taxpayers, but a decision has been made to establish a program on the basis of charter rights that apply a certain way to all people in Canada.

    Through the chair, then, in your estimation, what does removing “Canadians” do? Does it actually change the way the program functions right now?

    Given that we're talking about the preamble, no, I do not believe it would affect how the program is run. It would just align the language of the preamble with the eligibility criteria of the program, effectively.

    Okay.

    Thank you, Chair.

    Mr. Serré.

    Chair, this is a very minor amendment being proposed, which reflects how the program is being operated today.

    Organizations are not citizens. Basically, this is just making the preamble a bit more consistent, as was just described, with what the program is actually doing today. It's obviously based on the charter rights.

    Thank you.

    Mr. Noormohamed.

    Mr. Serré took the words right out of my mouth.

    I will cede my time back to you, Mr. Chair.

    Mr. Champoux.

    Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    Mr. McMurren, I'd like clarification: Are you able to tell me the proportion of applications submitted by individuals as compared to the number submitted by organizations or organized groups?

    We could probably confirm that by looking at the annual reports, but as far as I know, we don't have access to that kind of breakdown.

    So we don't know how many people amendment G‑3 might apply to. I agree that an organization isn't an individual. That said, it does raise a rather pertinent question. We're opening up this program to challenge Canadian laws, and we'd be making it available to people who don't have Canadian status. So I think it's quite relevant to ask questions and to want to explore this further. That's why I want to know how many people this would apply to.

    However, Mr. McMurren, you're telling me that we don't have access to data that would allow us to determine, in the Court Challenges Program, the proportion between individual applicants and applicants who are organizations.

    Thank you for your question. I imagine that it would be possible to do some calculations based on data from closed files when that information is published.

     All right. Seeing no more, I'm going to ask the question.

    Shall G-3 carry?

    (Amendment agreed to: yeas 6; nays 4)

     We now go to NDP-3.

    Ms. Ashton, I'll ask you to move this. Then, unfortunately, I'm going to have a couple of comments. I do need you to move it first.

    Okay, I can definitely move it and also predict what you might say. I have only to say that, for us in the NDP, it has been important for the Court Challenges Program to be able to expand to include cases based on the Canadian Human Rights Act. It's something that we heard from multiple witnesses and that is critical to the work we need to do in our country to advance everyone's human rights.

    Thank you very much. I can read out the chair's decision here.

    In the opinion of the chair, the last line of the proposed amendment is substantive and, therefore, inadmissible.

    We'll go to BQ-10 and Mr. Champoux. It's almost the same thing. I need you to move it. I'm not going to be your big friend here today, but I can see why I'm in the chair.

    Go ahead.

    Mr. Chair, I'll take my time and read the entire amendment to give you time to reflect on your decision.

    The purpose of BQ‑10 is to add to the preamble a recognition of the predominance of English in Quebec.

    Mr. Chair, I'll let you make your tough ruling.

    You said “English”.

    Excuse me, Mr. Chair, I'm talking about French, of course. You're throwing me off me with your harsh decisions.

    We're talking about the fact that French is the only minority language in Canada.

    Thank you.

    Unfortunately, in the opinion of the chair, the proposed amendment is substantive and, therefore, inadmissible.

    I'll give you one more shot, with BQ-11. Unfortunately, it will be the same result, but I'm going to have you move BQ-11.

    Mr. Chair, you've filled me with hope by giving me another chance.

    I assume that the same fate awaits BQ‑11, this beautiful amendment that I would really have liked to debate with my colleagues. Its purpose is to highlight the recognition of Quebec as a nation and the fact that French is the only official language in Quebec.

    Mr. Chair, I see what's coming.

    Unfortunately, on BQ-11, it is the opinion of the chair that the proposed amendment is substantive and, therefore, inadmissible.

    We're down to the short strokes here, ladies and gentlemen.

    Shall the preamble as amended carry?

    (Preamble as amended agreed to: yeas 7; nays 3)

    The Vice-Chair (Mr. Kevin Waugh): Shall the title carry?

    Some hon. members: Agreed.

    An hon. member: On division.

     Shall the bill as amended carry?

    Some hon. members: Agreed.

    An hon. member: On division.

    Shall the chair report the bill as amended to the House?

    Some hon. members: Agreed.

    An hon. member: On division.

    The Vice-Chair (Mr. Kevin Waugh): Shall the committee order a reprint of the bill as amended for the use of the House of Commons at report stage?

    Some hon. members: Agreed.

    The Vice-Chair (Mr. Kevin Waugh): It's done. Okay. Thank you.

    With a minute to spare.

    Well, no. We have five minutes.

    An hon. member: Do you have other business?

    The Vice-Chair (Mr. Kevin Waugh): There's other business. We believe Mr. Noormohamed was going to move something.

     Yes. Thank you—

    Thank you, officials. You're free to go.

    Thank you, Mr. McMurren and Ms. Labbé. Thank you for sitting in for the last 56 minutes.

    Go ahead, Mr. Noormohamed.

     Thank you, Mr. Chair.

     Fully recognizing that there is a desire on the part of the committee to get safe sport and Bill C-354 done, as well as to do the online harms study, I move:

    That way, we can get at least those three things done.

     Just to recap, June 6 would be on safe sport and Bill C-354; June 11 would be on online harms for both hours; June 18 would be on Bill C-354 and the amendments; and on June 20 we would have Bill C-354.

    Is there any conversation?

     It sounds like a great plan.

    We have a plan. Thank you, everyone.

     Yes, go ahead, Mrs. Thomas.

    Can you give us one minute just to verify it?

    Yes. We'll suspend for 30 seconds. You take a look at it.

     It looks reasonable. We're good.

    Ms. Ashton, your hand is up. The real hand is up.

     Yes, exactly.

    We have some thoughts on how things could be done more effectively. Our concern is with pushing Bill C-354 until the very end. I understand it has to be back in the House by the end of September. I think it might be more prudent to switch out even one of the online harms sessions to move Bill C-354 up, and then we could do online harms later.

    I know we don't always sit until the very end of the House sitting, so in the hope of finishing Bill C-354 before we leave and in time for September, I'm wondering if folks might consider that.

     Yes. Bill C-354 has to be done by Friday, September 27.

    Is there any discussion on this? I see none.

    Do I call for a vote? What is the procedure with this?

    You're the chair. You decide.

    We should vote on....

    On what? Is she moving an amendment?

    I guess, Ms. Ashton, you'll be moving an amendment to what has been brought out as a schedule.

    Let's just vote on whether we agree or disagree.

    Yes, okay. We can do that.

     We'll vote on Ms. Ashton's comments on Bill C-354, especially for June 20. We may not be here, and we need to get this....

    Ask her if she's moving it, though.

    Are you moving it, Ms. Ashton, or is it just for discussion?

     Whatever's more effective. I'll move it.

    I don't know, folks. It's based on the premise of us possibly not sitting on the 20th. Why would we leave clause-by-clause until the very last meeting when we may not sit? It has to be in right when we get back. That is a bit of a concern for me. I'm fine to move it.

    We would need clarification on where you would want Bill C-354 to move to, if not June 20.

     I'm suggesting bumping it up, so one of the online harms meetings could move to the 20th, in case we're still sitting, or into the fall.

    I understand we wouldn't have the witnesses right away for June 11, so we could leave online harms there. We could do safe sport, or whatever, but if folks want to move with online harms, that's fine. However, we could move Bill C-354 to June 13 and make June 18 clause-by-clause, and then June 20 would be online harms or whatever.

     Are there any thoughts?

    Mrs. Thomas.

    I'm sorry. With all due respect, an amendment doesn't end with “or whatever”. If Ms. Ashton wants to move an amendment, she has the ability to do that. However, if she's just wishing to have a loosey-goosey conversation, that's something you do off-line.

    I don't hear an amendment, therefore I don't see a need for a vote, except for the motion as moved by Mr. Noormohamed.

    Take the moment.

    Yes, go ahead, Ms. Ashton.

    I guess, regarding “loosey-goosey”, we could take out the “whatever”. I just think it's not very prudent for parliamentarians to commit to a June 20 clause-by-clause when it's likely we're not going to be sitting. If we're going to be loosey-goosey, that's the way to do it.

    My proposal is that we move Bill C-354 to take over the two previous meetings, ending clause-by-clause on June 18. June 20 could be for online harms.

    I think Mr. Méla wants to know about the deadline for amendments on June 13 for Bill C-354.

    We're running over time here, so we have to—

    Yes.

    Okay.

    What is the will of the committee in front of me, because of time constraints?

    Stick to this.

    Ms. Ashton, I think you're going to get defeated here. Everyone kind of agrees with the Liberals on this one. Thank you, though, for bringing it up, because Bill C-354 has to be reported to the House by September 27.

    I need someone to move to adjourn.

    An hon. member: Yes, I'll move that.

    The Vice-Chair (Mr. Kevin Waugh): You don't....

    Okay. Mrs. Thomas.

    Just to make sure, you need to take a vote on the motion as moved by Taleeb.

    Yes, that's right.

    Could we have a vote on the schedule Mr. Noormohamed has brought out here, starting with safe sport on June 6 and going to Bill C-354 and the rest on June 11, June 13, June 18 and June 20?

    (Motion agreed to: yeas 9; nays 1)

    The Vice-Chair (Mr. Kevin Waugh): Thank you.

    Does anyone move to adjourn?

    An hon. member: Yes.

    The Vice-Chair (Mr. Kevin Waugh): Okay. Thank you.