Skip to content
TRCM - Standing Committee

Transport and Communications


THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORT AND COMMUNICATIONS

EVIDENCE


OTTAWA, Wednesday, October 2, 2024

The Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications met with videoconference this day at 6:45 p.m. [ET] for a clause-by-clause consideration of Bill S-269, An Act respecting a national framework on advertising for sports betting; and, in camera, for the consideration of a draft agenda (future business).

Senator Julie Miville-Dechêne (Deputy Chair)) in the chair.

[Translation]

The Deputy Chair: Good evening. I am Julie Miville-Dechêne, senator from Quebec and deputy chair of this committee.

[English]

I would now invite my colleagues to introduce themselves, starting with you, senator.

Senator Simons: I am Senator Paula Simons. I come from Alberta, and I come from Treaty 6 territory.

Senator Cuzner: Rodger Cuzner from Nova Scotia

Senator M. Deacon: Thank you. Marty Deacon, Ontario.

Senator Clement: Bernadette Clement, Ontario.

Senator Dasko: Donna Dasko, Ontario.

The Deputy Chair: This evening we will proceed with clause-by-clause consideration of Bill S-269, An Act respecting a national framework on advertising for sports betting.

[Translation]

To assist us and answer any technical questions we might have about the text of the bill, we are joined by officials from Canadian Heritage.

From Canadian Heritage, we welcome Amy Awad, director general, Digital and Creative Marketplace Frameworks, who is well known to our committee, and Jaimie Earley, deputy director general, Sport Canada.

Welcome to you both.

[English]

Before we begin, colleagues, I would like to remind senators of a number of points. If at any point a senator is not clear where we are in the process, what we are doing, why we are in this room, please ask for clarification. I want to ensure that at all times we all have the same understanding of where we are in the process.

In terms of the mechanics of the process, when more than one amendment is proposed to be moved in a clause, amendments should be proposed in the order of the lines of a clause.

[Translation]

If a senator is opposed to an entire clause, the proper process is not to move a motion to delete the entire clause but, rather, to vote against the clause as standing as part of the bill.

Some amendments that are moved may have consequential effect on other parts of the bill. It is therefore useful to this process if a senator moving an amendment identified to the committee other clauses in this bill where this amendment could have an effect. Otherwise, it would be very difficult for members of the committee to remain consistent in their decision-making.

[English]

Because no notice is required to move amendments, there may, of course, have been no preliminary analysis of the amendments to establish which ones may be of consequence to others and which may be contradictory.

If committee members ever have any questions about the process or about the propriety of anything occurring, they can certainly raise a point of order. As chair, I will listen to arguments, decide when there has been sufficient discussion of a matter or order, and make a ruling.

[Translation]

The committee is the ultimate master of its business within the bounds established by the Senate and a ruling can be appealed to the full committee by asking whether the ruling shall be sustained.

I wish to remind honourable senators that if there is ever any uncertainty as to the results of a voice vote or a show of hands, the most effective route is to request a roll call vote which, obviously, provides unambiguous results. Finally, senators are aware that any tied vote negates the motion in question.

[English]

Are there any questions on any of the above? If not, we can now proceed.

Is it agreed that the committee proceeds to clause-by-clause consideration of Bill S-269, An Act respecting a national framework on advertising for sports betting?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

The Deputy Chair: Shall the title stand postponed?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

The Deputy Chair: Shall the preamble stand postponed?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

The Deputy Chair: Shall clause 1, which contains the short title, stand postponed?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

[Translation]

The Deputy Chair: Shall clause 2 carry?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

The Deputy Chair: Shall clause 3 carry?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

The Deputy Chair: Shall clause 4 carry?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

[English]

The Deputy Chair: Shall clause 5 carry?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

The Deputy Chair: Shall clause 6 carry?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

The Deputy Chair: Shall clause 1, which contains the short title, carry?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

The Deputy Chair: Shall the preamble carry?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

[Translation]

The Deputy Chair: Shall the title carry?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

[English]

The Deputy Chair: Shall the bill carry?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

The Deputy Chair: Does the committee wish to consider appending observations to the report?

An Hon. Senator: No.

Senator Simons: I considered it, but no.

An Hon. Senator: Tell me more.

The Deputy Chair: Well, it is a good segue to say that we are now going to proceed in camera to discuss — no, we are not discussing the text of the observation because there is no observation.

Is it agreed that I report this bill, or the chair, Senator Housakos, to the Senate in both official languages?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

[Translation]

The Deputy Chair: We will now go in camera for a few minutes.

(The committee continued in camera.)

Back to top