Canadian Heritage Committee on May 31st, 2022

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Thank you, Mr. Bittle.

Do I hear any discussion on Mr. Bittle's suggestion? Is there any opposition to his suggestion?

Mr. Champoux, please go ahead.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

I certainly do not object, Madam Chair. Indeed, we are quite familiar with the file and we have heard enough witnesses. I think that we have made up our minds a while ago about the nature of the amendments we want to table.

I would like to put a simple question to Mr. Méla, who is with us.

We may well table the amendments before Friday at 4 p.m., but if other amendments come up or become clearer afterwards, I imagine it will not be too late to table them. The 4 p.m. Friday deadline is not final, is it?

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Mr. Méla, are you there?

[Philippe Méla, Legislative Clerk]

Yes, I'm here, Madam Chair.

Indeed, Mr. Champoux, this deadline for tabling amendments was given simply to allow us to prepare the package of amendments, to organize the committee's work and to set the schedule accordingly. That does not preclude members from proposing other amendments during the course of the proceedings, if necessary.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Méla.

I think that the 4 p.m. Friday deadline is quite reasonable.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Thank you.

Mr. Julian, please go ahead.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I also agree that the deadline should be Friday at 4 p.m. I think that we've heard all the necessary witnesses. As you said, Madam Chair, this gives us the opportunity to submit the amendments and to have them translated.

I think four o'clock is reasonable for all the preparatory work that is required to get amendments processed for consideration in clause-by-clause.

That being said, I understand there are amendments that could potentially come out of testimony this week that won't be ready, and I would suggest to the committee that we be somewhat flexible. Unanimous consent is something that we can apply to accept additional amendments. We should be flexible in that regard, that if there are additional amendments to consider that are submitted in good faith, we accept them by unanimous consent.

That way we have a hard deadline of Friday at 4 p.m. with some flexibility if there is testimony on Thursday that compels members to think of additional amendments they want to bring forward. We have the ability, as a committee, to do that. I trust members of this committee to do the right thing if there are a few additional amendments brought forward.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Thank you very much, Peter.

Mr. Méla said there is always room to bring further amendments as we also consider amendments coming from the floor.

Mr. Nater, please go ahead.

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair. I do have some comments to make, but first, I want to get clarification from the clerk.

As we know, typically for most committees, estimates are due back today, the exception, of course, being our committee, the heritage committee. Under the Standing Orders, the Leader of the Opposition has the ability to extend that time for one committee, and Ms. Bergen has chosen to extend the heritage committee's estimates review, so we do have additional time beyond today to hear from the minister and his departmental officials on the estimates.

I would turn to the clerk for clarity on this. We've invited the minister and departmental officials on the estimates. They haven't yet come. I'm asking for clarity in terms of what their response has been and when we might expect a response from the minister to join us at this committee.

Then I have comments on the motion at hand.

[The Clerk]

Mr. Nater, just to be clear, is the question about when the minister is intending to come on the estimates?

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

Yes.

[The Clerk]

I have not received a response to that request.

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

I guess that goes back to my comments.

The estimates are fundamentally still one of the most important aspects of our parliamentary system. We have not yet heard from the minister.

When this government was first elected, the indication was that ministers would be made available to committees. I think there are a few things more important than the estimates in normal times. Today was our deadline. The fact that the Minister of Canadian Heritage has not seen fit to join us at this committee to review the estimates is unfortunate.

Thankfully, the leader of Her Majesty's loyal opposition has this committee's back and has provided us with some time to extend the estimates so that we can hear from the minister. The minister needs to be here. The fact that he hasn't been here yet is exceptionally unfortunate. Those are my comments on that. I hope that those from the minister's office are listening to this and will see fit to ensure that the minister makes himself available to this committee before our extended deadline so that we can review the estimates and report back to the House of Commons, as is our duty.

Going back then to our question at hand, which is the deadline for amendments. We said that we would have 20 hours of testimony. I believe by the end of this week, we will be at 19. We have at least one more hour next week. We haven't heard from all of the witnesses. We don't yet even know who we're hearing from later in the week, in terms of our Thursday witnesses. It takes some time for any party, us included, to come to a discussion among our colleagues—both those on the committee and elsewhere—and decide what types of amendments and suggestions we are going to come forward with.

I don't need to remind anyone on this committee about the challenges that were faced by this committee in the review of Bill C-10. There were things that were rushed, that were voted on and were removed during the clause-by-clause and the amendment process, which made it quite unfortunate.

I'm going to reinforce—I know Mr. Uppal wants to share a few words—that we are not in a position to commit to a deadline for amendments today. I'm not saying we will never be in a position to do that, but today we are not willing to make a deadline of this Friday for amendments to this bill. That's our position.

I know Mr. Uppal wants to make some comments. I might come back with more comments later.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Mr. Nater, we have a hard stop in about six minutes.

After Mr. Uppal speaks, I would hope that we could move on the deadline. It seems that there is majority support for this particular deadline. Thank you.

Go ahead, Mr. Uppal.

[Tim Uppal, Conservative, Edmonton Mill Woods, AB]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I find it difficult that we would be proposing a deadline for amendments before we've heard from all of the witnesses. In this place, we do a lot of important work, but I think there are few opportunities to do something that affects Canadians as directly as this does—Canadians of all ages. This is about how they consume content from the Internet. Many constituents have contacted us, whether for or against this bill. I think it's important that we hear from all of the witnesses.

I also believe—I don't really want to push this—that the 20 hours was a starting point. It was something that we agreed on, that we'd probably need 20 hours to study this. I know I have received information from other Canadians and organizations that would like to witness as well. I think it would not be appropriate for us to set a deadline for amendments before we hear from all of the witnesses.

I also think it would be definitely not appropriate for us to have some type of unanimous consent, as Mr. Julian recommended, to propose more witnesses. I think flexibility is flexibility. Flexibility does not require unanimous consent.

I think it's important that we hear from all of the witnesses, and that we definitely provide some more time after we hear from the witnesses to provide those amendments.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Thank you, Mr. Uppal.

Mr. Waugh, your hand is up.

[Kevin Waugh, Conservative, Saskatoon—Grasswood, SK]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

We've had only six hours of committee this week, Madam Chair. We had four hours yesterday, interrupted by bells. We were extended a little bit in the evening. We've done only two hours today. We still have another four hours to go through today, another two hours Wednesday and another two hours Thursday. Then, of course, we go into next week.

I don't think it's fair to send in the amendments when half of our witnesses haven't even come to committee. They're changing every hour, as you know. The clerk updates the schedule every 30 minutes, it seems, where somebody is dropping out or somebody is coming in. Those who drop out may want to come back at a later time. The time may not have suited them. Even today I saw lots of changes. Yesterday there were many changes.

Madam Chair, I think we should prepare next week for the amendments. We've all agreed to the 20 hours. If we need more, fine. I think it would be fair that we go through this week's testimony and get prepared for next Monday. I can't even tell you right now who's coming on Monday. I don't think it's fair to ask committee members to prepare amendments when we really have no idea who's coming on Monday.

As I said, they're dropping off like flies. Somebody comes in or somebody decides at the last moment it's not a good date. We've had some written recommendations, but I don't think it's fair for the committee to plan the amendments when, really, we haven't completed the witness list and heard from all.

I'll tell you, Madam Chair, that I may have a different opinion after I hear from everyone. I may drop an amendment that I heard on a Wednesday or a Thursday this week if somebody who came in Monday gave a different view. I don't think it's fair to the clerk and all those involved if, all of a sudden, no, we don't want that amendment because we heard a different view on Monday that opened up a whole new discussion.

I would just bring that forward for your consideration.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Thank you very much, Mr. Waugh.

I am listening, and I have made a consideration. I would like to respond.

I think we had all agreed when we started and embarked on Bill C-11 in good faith.... I sat here and I listened to everyone talk to each other quietly in the room. We suspended in order to do that. It was not a question or a tentative suggestion. We had agreed that there would be 20 more hours of hearing witnesses.

By Thursday, June 2, we will have achieved 19 hours. I am certain we could ask the clerk if we could extend one of those meetings by one hour. She would try to find a way to do that, if everyone is insisting on the 20 hours. It is what we had all agreed on.

I think we have always had meetings where we were doing thing one and looking ahead to do item two. It is not unusual for committees to look ahead. We are looking ahead.

I have had suggestions from the floor. It is important that we respect the clerk and the legislative assistant and the legislative analysts, who would like us to give them some formal direction. It has been suggested by one of the members of this committee, and agreed on by two other parties, that in fact a hard deadline...or not a hard deadline, because Mr. Méla has told us that the deadline can fluctuate. If we have a deadline for the majority of amendments to come from this committee by four o'clock on Friday, it means that if on the weekend or on Thursday we hear some things that we want to change, Mr. Méla has assured us that we have the ability to do that while we're considering amendments. These can come from the floor.

I don't see that this is necessarily unfair. I think this is about good faith. This committee has always worked on good faith and on consensus. I think we saw that when we agreed on the 20 hours of witnesses.

What I would like to suggest is that the majority in this room...and I think I would like to hear if there is opposition to that hard deadline, because I'm going to call for a vote on it.

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

I have a point of order, Madam Chair.

I don't think you can. You cannot call for a vote. There's still a speakers list.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

I saw no hands up when I called for the vote. Before I responded, I had one final speaker. That was Mr. Waugh. I saw no other hands, and the clerk did not indicate to me that there was another hand up before I spoke. She had her hand up, I asked her and she told me that she was sorry to interrupt me.

I have made my statement and I am calling for a resolution to this—

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Madam Chair, I have point of order.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Yes, Ms. Thomas.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Madam Chair, I'm sorry. If you were in the room, you would understand that the clerk has had her hand up for quite some time, and when she addressed you earlier, it was not to apologize for interrupting; rather, she indicated that there were, in fact, hands up.

I would encourage you to check in with the clerk and verify, please.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Ms. Thomas, I also asked the clerk, when her hand was up. I said, “your hand is up” and she said to me, “I'm sorry to interrupt”—

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

I have a point of order.