Evidence of meeting #149 for Canadian Heritage in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was line.
A video is available from Parliament.
8:55 p.m.
Green
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Just as a suggestion to my friend Wayne, most legal language would use “shall” instead of “must”. It has the same effect, but I would suggest that it would probably read more typically as “shall”.
8:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Julie Dabrusin
The lawyer in me has flagged this, except the word “must” was used throughout this legislation and earlier in the same paragraph, so you would have a conflict in wording. But I respect that; I'm old school, and I like my “shalls” and “mays”.
Right now we're on the subamendment to change the “mays” to “musts” in both paragraphs.
All in favour?
(Subamendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
8:55 p.m.
Liberal
8:55 p.m.
Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, CPC
My concern was about not doing legislation just on the fly and having things tabled. We know we have many clauses that we're challenging to get right. My bigger issue, which I've expressed, is that you could have work being done with multi-parties. Let's say you have five different language communities asking to have research as a one-research study, and they're using different techniques and doing comparative analysis. One group can ask for the results and have the results for all. It might not necessarily be something the others want to share.
I think when we do something on the fly, we're heading down dangerous territory here. I don't for one minute doubt that the Senate will make other changes to this bill and it will be coming back to the House. I think it needs to be done with due diligence and with some testimony about what happens if there are different language groups and comparatives and you don't want to share, you don't want to be compared, or you don't want your program to be compared.
We've headed into a dangerous area with this. It happens when you do it on the fly. We absolutely are adamantly concerned about this clause as it stands.
9 p.m.
Edmonton Centre, Lib.
Madam Chair, I would like the department to maybe give us some insights into how we arrived at this clause.
9 p.m.
Deputy Minister, Department of Canadian Heritage
The underpinning behind it is that when there is collaborative research, the methodology is agreed at the outset, just like any other collaborative work, which would include end to end, from the moment that information is gathered to the moment where the information is released or used for comparative purposes.
It leaves the possibility of not participating, or striking an agreement with the commissioner to have research with one community specifically. It doesn't preclude that. The idea behind this is to provide for the possibility of having comparative research, but not forcing comparative research. Once people participate, they participate from the beginning to the end and it's pre-agreed to; it's not forced on anybody.
9 p.m.
Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, CPC
Madam Chair, again, respectfully, we just had this tabled-dropped on us tonight, but I interpret this as someone agreeing to research and getting their own results—ensuring that they have the right to their own results. I don't see the whole issue around collaborative research being particularly well addressed. People might want to have collaborative research efforts and they don't share results with their other partners; they want it for their own self-improvement.
As I say, I think it's fine if it's either defeated or given more thought when the Senate looks at it. We can flag it to the Senate as an issue that might need more witnesses, some more thought. But we're heading down a dangerous path and we're doing legislation on the fly, and I am really uncomfortable.
9 p.m.
Conservative
Martin Shields Conservative Bow River, AB
Yes. This is a different kind of research that we're talking about and different kinds of communities, and it's a bit like my colleague mentioned. This is not like going out and saying to 10 municipal communities, we're going to do research and get back to you on the research and collaborate with you.
We're talking about independent nations here. This is different. I think you're pushing the boundaries with this one when you're talking “collaboratively” and independent nations versus a number of municipal communities, like groups, different things, which might sign off and give you permission.
You have to be careful with what you're suggesting here. I think the caution is wise. You have to be careful.
9 p.m.
NDP
Pierre Nantel NDP Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC
You may tell me that it's a little late to do so, but I want to thank my colleagues for raising this issue. Mr. Saganash told me that one solution here could be to add a provision for the funding of this type of work.
See, if we put the money toward doing these studies, you can actually add that clause. You want to make sure that this issue is addressed, so there is still space for you to be comfortable potentially when the money is [Inaudible--Editor].
9 p.m.
Edmonton Centre, Lib.
If I'm correct, I think Ms. May's section addresses the fact that there is consent before research, so that does head that off at the pass maybe a bit.
I'm comfortable, in having heard this discussion and what's written here, that we have addressed the concerns.
To Ms. McLeod's point, if we get it wrong, the Senate will tell us.
9 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Julie Dabrusin
All right.
Seeing no further discussion, is everyone in favour of the NDP amendment as amended to create clause 24.1?
(Amendment as amended agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
This brings us to the preamble.
We are in the home stretch, so I'm going to ask if everybody can bear through it. We don't have many other amendments, and in fact some of what I might say next is going to shorten it.
Shall the short title carry?
9 p.m.
Some hon. members
Agreed.
9 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Julie Dabrusin
Thank you.
With regard to the preamble, it has been flagged for me by the legislative clerk that the preamble amendments, save PV-10, are procedurally inadmissible. The legislative clerk can help with that. If anybody has any questions, he can explain CPC-3, for example, on the preamble. There is a special reason why.
I'll ask the clerk to explain why he says it is inadmissible.
9:05 p.m.
Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, CPC
We had to get the change in clause 6 for that.
9:05 p.m.
Green
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
It's very simple. Everybody around the table is familiar with it. The current draft speaks of the languages spoken. That could preclude other forms of language, such as sign language, so my amendment would change “spoken” to “used”.
(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])