Yes.
Evidence of meeting #20 for Canadian Heritage in the 39th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was report.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Evidence of meeting #20 for Canadian Heritage in the 39th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was report.
A recording is available from Parliament.
4:50 p.m.
Liberal
Mauril Bélanger Liberal Ottawa—Vanier, ON
I didn't realize any had been scheduled. I thought we were determining who we'd want.
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
4:50 p.m.
Liberal
Mauril Bélanger Liberal Ottawa—Vanier, ON
Some of them are on the list. But if we decide to proceed, then it would stand to reason they shouldn't be called, that's for sure.
Sorry, I am attempting to answer Charlie's question.
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Gary Schellenberger
Those coming before the committee have not been selected.
4:50 p.m.
NDP
Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON
Yes, I know. We laid out a possible scenario.
My only concern here, Mr. Chair, is that the parties to this litigation would be significant parties to hear from, if we were going to go ahead with this. If these people weren't here to speak, I would have to question why everybody else is speaking, because they have a major voice.
I would be unsure how we would proceed if.... Clearly, we cannot have parties to litigation coming before us and setting up a parallel process. But if they weren't there, I would question whether we'd go ahead without them, because I think we'd also leave ourselves open to not having a complete and full review of what we have the power to do here. But without them, I don't know if there's much point.
4:50 p.m.
Liberal
Mauril Bélanger Liberal Ottawa—Vanier, ON
Mr. Chairman, I have not read the.... Perhaps the clerk or the researchers could help us in determining what indeed the litigation concerns specifically. I suspect it may be specifically referring to two things. One is the Official Languages Act, subsection 43(2), which states that--and don't pin me down here--the Minister of Canadian Heritage shall consult in making decisions concerning programs that would affect the implementation...enhancing the use of French and English in the country. Roughly, that's what it says.
The other document they may be referring to is a document that all party leaders, I believe, signed in the last campaign, which was to respect the Official Languages Act in terms of the spirit and its letter. If that is what the litigation is about, then my opinion is that it wouldn't prevent the committee from looking at the politics of the decision by the government to cancel the court challenges program. Certainly I would rally immediately, with the concept that none of the parties in the litigation be invited. But there are enough on the list submitted before us that the....
For instance, the group from Prince Edward Island would cover the francophone, the linguistic side of it. The Gisèle Lalonde, Michelle de Courville Nicol, and the Montfort Hospital situation would cover those as well.
If the decision of this committee is to proceed not on the actual litigation, which we'd have to confirm, but on the overall debate, and if we avoided those groups, there would be other groups that could cover the linguistic aspect of the importance of the court challenges program, as well.
I'm putting that on the table to try to guide us as we go forward.
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
Jim Abbott Conservative Kootenay—Columbia, BC
Mr. Chair, for the edification of my friends on the other side, we--I and members of the government party--have had a chance to consider this. It's our position that with the court cases pending, it's inappropriate for the committee to be hearing witnesses to discuss the CCP.
I have an email from the Department of Canadian Heritage legal services that states:
...in the case of government officials (ministers, deputy ministers, etc.) our advice -- as always when an issue is before the courts -- is that...it would be inappropriate for them to comment on this case because the government's decision is currently being challenged in a court of law.
Now I recognized fully what Mr. Bélanger has just said and I'm absolutely positive that he said it in absolute good faith--I'm not questioning that for a split second--but it's not hard to imagine a situation in which we could have testimony before the committee that I, as the parliamentary secretary to the minister, would have to respond to.
We have privilege at this committee. What we're talking about right now is parliamentary privilege at this committee. These words that I'm uttering cannot be used in a court. However, once that gavel goes down, if a witness said something that I as the parliamentary secretary felt obliged to respond to on behalf of the minister, I'm not covered by that privilege anymore. As a consequence, it's our decision that we will not be taking part in committee hearings or subcommittee hearings as Conservative members.
Should any decision be made on the part of the other members to go ahead, that's fine. That's a decision they can make.
4:55 p.m.
Bloc
Maka Kotto Bloc Saint-Lambert, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
The hypothetical case is similar to that of Telefilm. You have probably highlighted it in the conclusion of the notice we received.
We had two choices at the time: either hearing Telefilm in camera or suspend the works and wait for the cases pending before the courts to be heard. I had chosen to suspend the works. I did not want the exchanges with Telefilm to be conducted in camera, because in my opinion, the stakes were important enough for the public to be sufficiently informed about the Telefilm file and about the financing of a festival that has swallowed up a million dollars.
In the case that concerns us, I may also propose the possibility of hearing people in camera to find some middle ground with them. This is indeed a case in point. Even if we do not invite those who lodged a complaint or who are suing the government, we will inevitably bring up the issue and feed lawyers' arguments who will defend those sue the government.
Therefore, there is a possibility of an in camera hearing. I don't know what you think about it.
4:55 p.m.
Conservative
4:55 p.m.
Liberal
Mauril Bélanger Liberal Ottawa—Vanier, ON
I was going to suggest the following. First, Mr. Abbott has said that the government members have met and have decided not to participate. Was that following a discussion related to the legal notice that the chairman read to us today?
4:55 p.m.
Liberal
Mauril Bélanger Liberal Ottawa—Vanier, ON
No? Okay.
I'm just trying to see...because today is the first I hear of this. It's the first you hear of it too--your own advice?
4:55 p.m.
Conservative
Jim Abbott Conservative Kootenay—Columbia, BC
No. To be precise, I quoted the advice that we took from the department.
4:55 p.m.
Liberal
Mauril Bélanger Liberal Ottawa—Vanier, ON
Fair enough.
Mr. Chairman, I would want a bit of time to also consult, because I've been in the same situation before, of chairing a committee when we had a sub judice matter brought to our attention, and it was clearly established at the time that the committee can go forward if it wants to. So we're clear on that; it's a choice we have to make.
In order to actually make that choice, we need to know precisely the litigation that is in front of the courts now, that was initiated last week. In the absence of that information, I don't think we can arrive at the right conclusion. That's the first thing I would do.
But the second thing is this. When we examined that matter, Mr. Chairman, we weighed very heavily the following: that you have to be careful not to invoke sub judice too liberally, if I may use that word, for the simple reason that it can then become a tool to shut down parliamentary deliberations: if a topic just becomes too hot to be debated, you get someone to initiate a legal action. I'm not suggesting that's what happened here, but you could conceive of it and therefore shut down all parliamentary debate, which is not what the sub judice convention ever intended. It's a balancing act of respecting jurisdiction and going forward very carefully.
I'm all for that, but I personally need a bit more information about the nature of this litigation, and I also want to consult Marleau and Montpetit, and perhaps some other experts, before arriving at my own determination. I'd encourage us to postpone a decision until perhaps the next meeting, until we've all had a chance to look at it.
5 p.m.
NDP
Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON
Thank you.
I guess there are a couple of issues here. We definitely need to know the exact nature. If it is a legal action over the court challenges program, then it's very clear. If there's some variation on that, I think it changes it dramatically.
I'm looking at precedents with our committee in recent years. We had the issue, about which I felt very strongly, concerning having Mr. Rabinovitch come before us during the lockout. That was voted down, saying that there was action being taken and that until the lockout was settled we wouldn't hear from him.
I felt at the time we had the right to hear from him and pose questions on behalf of our constituents, because taxpayers' money was going to them and we were not receiving services; however, that was the position of our committee.
The other issue is, as Mr. Kotto said, the issue of Telefilm, where we had the opportunity to go in camera. I would suggest the situation is somewhat different, even though we at that time decided not to go that route. I would question the point of going in camera on this. We have very strong feelings, I would say, around this committee about the court challenges program; we know what we think of it. Bringing the court challenges program before our committee would be according to our right as parliamentarians to give it an airing, to look at it, to investigate it, to raise the issues. That's why we would be having it. To bring him in camera on this matter is not going to further illuminate this for us.
So the question is this. If some of the main groups have decided on their own to go through another process to have their issue illuminated, which would be to have it investigated and challenged through the courts, then I would suggest our role at that point would even be redundant, regardless of the other aspects. If this is clearly on the court challenges program, then I would suggest that obviously the public groups have made their decision and that we don't have a role in it at this point.
5 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Gary Schellenberger
One thing I'm going to suggest is that we ask the clerk and experts to come back to the next meeting to find out exactly what the challenge is. Is that fair?
5 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Gary Schellenberger
Okay, that will be the instruction. Thank you.
We move to a motion by Mr. Scarpaleggia:
Given that Exporail, the Canadian Railway Museum, is the foremost guardian of Canada's railway history and heritage that serves as a central resource for the activities of other rail museums in Canada, Given that Exporail is a museum of national significance that had benefited from special designation and recognition in 1978 by the National Museums of Canada Corporation, Given that Exporail is on a short list of internationally-recognized rail museums, Given that Exporail faces significant challenges to its ability to properly preserve Canada's railway heritage, Given that Canada has officially-designated national museums for Aviation and Agriculture, Given that progress on developing a national museums policy should not preclude immediate and targeted government action to address specific needs in Canada's museums infrastructure, Given the existence of a significant federal budget surplus, That the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage request that the government officially designate Exporail as Canada's National Railway Museum with dedicated long-term funding outside of the Museum's Assistance Program.
5:05 p.m.
Liberal
Scott Simms Liberal Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL
Mr. Chair, thank you for recognizing me.
I'd like to request a change here, an amendment. I'd like the amendment to change the last paragraph as follows:
That the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage include in its upcoming report on the government's Museum Policy a recommendation that the government officially designate Exporail as Canada's National Railway Museum with dedicated long-term funding outside of the Museum's Assistance Program.
I'm adding “include in its upcoming report on the government's Museum Policy”, and I'm then changing “request” to “a recommendation”.
5:05 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Gary Schellenberger
Do you have that in writing?
Mr. Angus, did you have something?