Canadian Heritage Committee on Oct. 23rd, 2018

[Steven Blaney]

Madam Chair, my thanks to Mr. Nantel for his comments. We are doing constructive work. This bill has received the support of three parties and of a number of members in the House of Commons. We are in favour of the bill. However, I come back to the point I made earlier. The Canadian Museum of History, which we can consider to be the steward of heritage, has provided comments, clause by clause, on the clauses of the proposed bill.

As Mr. Nantel just mentioned, the intent of the bill is good, but as is often said, the devil is in the details. Let us take, for example, clause 3, which is in the document presented to us. The Canadian Museum of History has proposed two changes to the original text.

[The Chair, Liberal, Julie Dabrusin]

Mr. Blaney, we're still on clause 2, so you will have to keep your comments on clause 2.

[Steven Blaney]

Madam Chair, I actually do have comments on clause 2. The Canadian Museum of History has also sent some comments about that clause.

Madam Chair, I asked you whether the recommendations from the Canadian Museum of History had been considered before these amendments were drafted. Were the texts submitted in advance so that parliamentarians from various parties could familiarize themselves with them and include them in the proposed amendments? I had no reply from you. There was a comment from Mr. Nantel, however.

I feel that we all have a common objective: to make sure that the bill achieves its goal, meaning that it is the best it can be.

I repeat that the museum submitting recommendations to us is a steward of our heritage, and you are giving me no assurance at all that its recommendations have been considered in the proposed amendments. As a result, I can only conclude that we are going to ask the House of Commons, at third reading, to study a botched bill that has ignored some particularly appropriate comments.

Madam Chair, I must inform you that it is my intention to consider the recommendations and the amendments proposed by the Canadian Museum of History, because that is our objective for today. We want a bill that is the best it can be and that accommodates the comments that witnesses before the committee have provided, those that we have not gratuitously dismissed even before we have been able to ask them a single question. Forgive me for using that expression, but that is what happened just now. We are told that the topic of copyright is important, but the government has showed us today that its bulldozer is never far away.

I come back to the issue that concerns us today, the bill on the repatriation of Aboriginal cultural property. We feel that this must be done properly, and that the committee would be failing in its duty if, before it passes amendments, it does not consider the recommendations from the Canadian Museum of History. They are one of the major players in protecting Aboriginal heritage, for goodness’ sake. It will be one of the major players when we come to develop a strategy. The Canadian Museum of History will be involved in that strategy, of course, given that it holds substantial Aboriginal collections.

Madam Chair, let me ask you again. This is basically to do with time. When was this text submitted to parliamentarians? Did it give parliamentarians enough time to consider the recommendations of the Canadian Museum of History before submitting amendments to be studied in the clause-by-clause consideration of the bill?

If not, I can only conclude that we have an important document, but that the committee members have not had the opportunity to express their views on it. If we take an approach that does not consider these factors, which seem appropriate and important to me, we may well be missing the boat.

[The Chair, Liberal, Julie Dabrusin]

To answer your question, I'm going to ask the clerk to confirm the date of distribution, and then we'll go to Mr. Nantel.

[The Clerk of the Committee, Mr. Graeme Truelove]

The document was distributed yesterday.

[The Chair, Liberal, Julie Dabrusin]

Very well.

Mr. Nantel, the floor is yours.

[Pierre Nantel, NDP, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

First of all, it was in a sort of spirit of collegiality that I said I was happy that the Conservatives see the fact that we are rushing to pass this bill as a problem. I was surrendering given the majority, but, frankly, I thank my colleague very much for pointing this out.

We did receive information yesterday from the Canadian Museum of History. We also received something yesterday, or maybe it was this morning, from the Royal British Columbia Museum, if I'm not mistaken. While I'm talking to you, I'll check it. I received an email at 10:14 a. m.

It was “Written responses to questions on Bill C-391”.

We received it this morning at 10:14 a.m.

Mr. Blaney, I'll give you time to eat. I'm not going to ask you to make comments with carrots in your mouth. They're good, by the way. It's often the same menu.

[The Chair, Liberal, Julie Dabrusin]

Okay, keep it on clause 2, not carrots.

[Pierre Nantel, NDP, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Yes, well, you want me to keep it on clause 2. The point is that, to tell the truth, I'm mesmerized to see that we are....

We are in the process of passing a bill, while there are witnesses from museums to be heard. They are not First Nations, but these witnesses certainly care about the repatriation of Aboriginal cultural property and reconciliation with indigenous peoples. No one here can look me in the eye and tell me that the recommendations, the bill and the amendments take into account the information that was sent to us by the Royal British Columbia Museum this morning at 10:14 a.m. That's impossible.

As my colleague said, isn't that a little insulting to all these people the committee is asking to appear? This morning, I’m more interested in doing the right thing, no matter what the government thinks. And the right thing is to ensure, as a representative of the New Democrats, that my First Nations colleagues can support the amendments. We’ve talked a lot about people, like Mr. Saganash, who has often been quoted. This is certainly my main concern.

Honestly, there is a major procedural flaw in rushing right away to pass the bill just like that, when we have important witnesses to hear. We cannot dispute the importance and professional expertise of the people from the Royal British Columbia Museum.

I see you wish to speak, Madam Chair. I'll let you do so and then we'll continue afterwards.

Can someone please clearly explain this procedural flaw in ignoring the views of experts such as the Royal British Columbia Museum and the Canadian Museum of History before passing this bill?

[The Chair, Liberal, Julie Dabrusin]

Mr. Boissonnault, you have the floor.

[Randy Boissonnault]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I would like to propose an amendment to clause 2, which all members of the committee have received. It’s amendment LIB-1.1.

LIB-1.1 pertains to making a change in the original bill to amend the word “aboriginal” to “indigenous”. Instead of “aboriginal cultural property”—

[The Chair, Liberal, Julie Dabrusin]

Can I interrupt you for one second?

I was speaking with the legislative clerk, who mentioned that LIB-1 has to go before LIB-1.1.

[Randy Boissonnault]

Who has amendment LIB-1?

Mr. Breton?

[Pierre Breton, Liberal, Shefford, QC]

I have clause 2, to which I would like to propose an amendment.

[Pierre Nantel, NDP, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Why don't you wait your turn?

[Randy Boissonnault]

I cede my time to Monsieur Breton.

[Pierre Breton, Liberal, Shefford, QC]

I move that amendment LIB-1 be passed.

[The Chair, Liberal, Julie Dabrusin]

I need to confirm with the legislative clerk, because we're trying to figure out the order. While LIB-1 must go before LIB-1.1, if LIB-1 is adopted, LIB-1.1 and NDP-1 cannot be moved, as they amend the same lines. I'm going to ask the legislative clerk how this has to be done properly.

If I can clarify the issue that has been raised, Monsieur Breton and Monsieur Boissonnault, as you're sharing your time on this one, the issue is that LIB-1—

[Randy Boissonnault]

Madam Chair, let's just suspend for three minutes.

I move to suspend.

[The Chair, Liberal, Julie Dabrusin]

All right. We're going to suspend.

[The Chair, Liberal, Julie Dabrusin]

Let's start again because we have everyone at the table.

Thank you.

[Steven Blaney]

I would like to talk to the members opposite a little. Can we suspend the meeting for a moment or do you want us to start again?

[The Chair, Liberal, Julie Dabrusin]

Yes.

I'm going to do a two-minute suspension as we've already been suspended for a bit.

[The Chair, Liberal, Julie Dabrusin]

All right.

I am going back to Mr. Boissonnault. You were sharing your time with Mr. Breton.

[Randy Boissonnault]

Yes, I'll turn it over to Mr. Breton.