Canadian Heritage Committee on June 2nd, 2016

[Larry Maguire, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Madam Chair, I'd just like—

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

All right, I hear none. Shall clause 1 carry?

[Larry Maguire, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Madam Chair, can I get clarity in regard to future committees of this Parliament in regard to the unanimity, my original question? I'd like clarification from the clerk that we have met all the rules of this committee—

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

There's a motion on the floor, Mr. Maguire. I think the clerk has clarified, and I have clarified. The committee has agreed to sustain the chair's ruling, and we will now call the vote on clause 1.

Shall clause 1 carry?

[Larry Maguire, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

You are moving forward without clarity.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Shall clause 1 carry?

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

Can I speak to the motion, please?

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Those in favour that clause 1 be carried.

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

Could I speak to the clause, please?

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Yes. Mr. Van Loan should speak to the clause. He's following the order of the day, which is that shall clause 1 carry.

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

I was not speaking because my friend was seeking to have the floor and you were ignoring him.

This clause is of course the essence of what we're doing. It replaces the national anthem with the attached. I think it is tragic that this is being done in a fashion where Canadians are being shut out. Their national anthem is being changed. Millions of Canadians have been singing it for decades. It belongs to them. It is not a plaything of ours, nor is this committee a plaything of ours.

I think it sends an alarming signal to Canadians that in dealing with our most significant national symbols, we're willing to breach our rules, three times now, and to do it twice in a fashion that suppresses any dissent whatsoever.

Our national symbols in a free and democratic country are being changed by a vote of the majority, but more importantly on the process side of things, a vote of the majority that has suppressed dissenting or contrary views, a vote of the majority that we should proceed with virtually no notice to Canadians of committee hearings. There would be only one opportunity to be a witness, and no Canadians knew of this because it happened so quickly, notwithstanding that when we were in contact with people who wanted to appear as witnesses, when those witness lists were provided, because we were dealing with 36 hours' notice if you will, less than that for some of them, of when they were to appear, they were obviously not able to rearrange their affairs in such a fashion as to come here.

We do that on nothing else. We do that on no other bills. Here we are doing it on something that is symbolic, that belongs to all Canadians, that is supposed to be a celebration of our democracy, of our freedom, of our traditions, of what it means to be Canadians. What are we showing them? We're showing them that if I have more votes than you, if I'm a bigger bully, if I have 39% of the vote, I can impose my will and suppress all dissent on the things that belong to you, Canadians.

People have different views. I was part of a government that proposed changing these words. The reason this matters to me so much is that we had a process. We floated it to Canadians in a throne speech. We signalled to them that this is where we wish to go. We did it in a high-profile fashion that allowed them the opportunity to hear about it, to be fully aware of it, and to respond, and the response was strong and clear.

While I was persuaded at the time of the merits of “thou dost in us command” as a return to our histories and traditions, Canadians didn't share that view, for better or worse. I was big enough to accept that. I was big enough to listen to Canadians. I was big enough to understand that notwithstanding we had a majority, and we could indeed have imposed our will had we wished to, perhaps Canadians were telling us something very important. Perhaps they were saying, “Let's not change these symbols lightly. Let's not impose it in a top-down way.”

Yet, that is exactly what we are doing here. In this free and democratic country, we're telling Canadians, “Guess what? You don't have a say in your national anthem. It belongs to us as politicians. It belongs to us to deliver our world view to you and impose it upon you.”

Whatever the merits of that—and as I said, I was sold on the merits of that some time ago—what persuaded me was consultation, listening, hearing from Canadians that they had a different view, and valuing that different view.

What I have seen here is a display that does not value the views of others: “We think we are right. Not only will we rush things through so others cannot tell us something different, but when they do come to this table to tell us something different, we will move a motion to shut down their ability to tell us that for another 15 minutes.”

It won't change the outcome today, but it is a very powerful symbol of how this is being done and what that means. When that powerful symbol of the erosion of the legitimacy of people's dissenting views is being held up—and that's happening at the same time as we're dealing with the national anthem and our freedom—I can understand why every single member of the opposition on that side is holding their head down. Because it is shameful.

It is shameful to do it in such a fashion that Canadians can't have their say. We have an obligation, I think, to give them that opportunity to consult, to hear, to let them have their say, and not to break the rules three times over as we have now done, to ignore the rules three times over as we have now done, in a rush to achieve what we want.

I've said what I've said about the member who is sponsoring this bill. He ran for Speaker of the House, not because he wanted the ability to sit in that chair and break the rules to get his way, but because he valued the institution. I've served here now many more years than I ever expected to when I was first elected in 2004, but in that time, I've appreciated that the rules in our democratic institutions, however stodgy and however frustrating they may be for those who want to get things done—and I was one of those who wanted to get things done for quite some time—exist for a reason. They exist for a reason, and that is, the democratic process sometimes requires reflection. When we first proposed this change, and I supported it at that time, we allowed that process to unfold and we listened to Canadians. My views were changed, not because of my own personal views being changed, but because I feel that when I'm here representing my constituents and representing Canadians, what they say and what they feel matters.

We are a doing a double disservice to them, I believe, first with the change in substance, which I believe it is not in accord with what changes are wanted, and second, in the way and the fashion in which we are doing so, short-circuiting and suppressing dissent at every turn. This is sad. To do so in the case of our national anthem, which is what we are proposing to do right here, is unfortunate. It is a sad day and I regret it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Thank you, Mr. Van Loan.

Is there any further discussion on amendments to the first clause?

Hearing none, I will now ask whether clause 1 shall carry.

Shall clause 1 carry?

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

Can we have a recorded vote?

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Yes.

(Clause 1 agreed to: yeas 6; nays 3)

Shall the schedule carry?

Do you wish a recorded vote on this one?

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

This is your chance to get your words in.

[Larry Maguire, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Madam Chair, I would like to speak to this as well, to take a moment to reflect on what has been done here.

As I said earlier, this will not change the outcome of the vote today on this bill. However, I am most concerned, not just because I'm vice-chair of the committee but also as a regular parliamentarian, that we have circumvented the rules of the House with regard to the whole process. This is about process.

As I said in my speech in the House, I have the greatest respect for the member who moved this forward. Mr. Bélanger is a very credible member of Parliament. If he wants to put this type of thing forward, he's quite willing to do that. However, I would suggest as well that because of the circumstances he has faced, which are very unfortunate, Madam Chair, that even his own colleagues have not taken his respect for Parliament into consideration. I believe that because of the precedent that's been set here now with the member for Nunavut not receiving the proper notice since he became an independent member—and that's been clarified—I think he would have been the last one to have wanted to see this.

It makes the difference between now and Tuesday when a few more witnesses would have been able to come. You know, Madam Chair, they weren't able to come because of the quickness of this committee.

We didn't get the opportunity to finish the questions. We do agree to agendas in this committee. The committee agenda before us states 8:45 to 9:45 for witnesses today. We had one witness. We were cut off 20 minutes early. We still had the second hour, and virtually every committee is two hours long unless we finalize our business early.

Madam Chair, there was a full outline on the clause-by-clause consideration here. It's very clear that it's on the agenda from 9:45 to 10:45, and as I said, had we waited that extra 20 minutes to get to the second portion of our meeting, it would not have changed the outcome of the whole process.

However, because of our insistence on clarity, Madam Chair, and it has now been clarified that Mr. Tootoo, the member for Nunavut, hadn't received proper notification under the rules of Parliament, and because we did not have unanimous consent to suspend the rules of this committee to agree with the rules of Parliament....

Madam Chair, the member who put this forward wanted to be the Speaker. All parties unanimously agreed in the House to allow him to be an honorary Speaker. That has never happened before, Madam Chair. We all respect him as an individual.

I want it on the record, Madam Chair, that I believe we are proceeding without proper process with regard to this meeting being held today, and as much as another 20 minutes of questions may not have changed the outcome, I think it's really unfair. I don't know whether the next four days will make any difference or not. We could have come back on Tuesday and heard more witnesses, Madam Chair, and this would have still been the outcome of the bill. It would have been the same with regard to how the government votes on it.

That's their right. I have no problem with the democratic process of their voting for it as they wish, Madam Chair. I just have a real concern that we've set a precedent for all future committees of Parliament, and I'm very concerned about that. I think that the member putting the bill forward would have been concerned about it as well.

I'll leave it that, Madam Chair. I had many other comments, quotes from people in Canada. As I indicated, the vast majority of the people in my riding and in many others are against the change in this bill. In the city of Winnipeg it was 90 to 10 on one survey, Madam Chair.

I would imagine on issues of national significance like this, many committees would have travelled across the country and held public hearings to get feedback. That wasn't even an offer on the table from the committee, Madam Chair, and notwithstanding the situation, I think it would have been probably a wise move to have an opportunity to educate Canadians that this was taking place. Many of them, as was pointed out by our witness today, wouldn't even know this is taking place, Madam Chair, unless they follow the daily goings-on in committees or in Parliament.

We had a historian before us today in committee who made some extremely valid comments in regard to the arguments of the government in moving forward the way they have. Even one of my colleagues from across the way indicated that today's decision will be future history, Madam Chair. That's very true.

It was also pointed out that this is a precedent that was done in some other areas as well. Dominion Day was changed to Canada Day with 13 members in the House. I think “sneaky process” were the words that were used. And there's the anxiety that this may cause. “Quick and dirty” were the comments that came from our witness today. He was only saying that because Canadians don't know about the process. I think that's a grave nature of why this has been forced upon us in such a very short time, Madam Speaker.

I will leave it at that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Thank you, Mr. Maguire.

Mr. Waugh, you wished to speak to this.

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

Yes, I do. Thank you, Madam Chair.

A number of us around this table are first-time parliamentarians. A lot of us don't really understand a lot of the rules in the House. We're learning as we go. I think that's a fair assessment when I look around.

I was one of those. I received a phone call from the honourable member who is moving this bill. I received one in November.

I just want to share, Madam Chair, that I wasn't home at the time. I was flying back from Ottawa to Saskatoon, my home riding.

The honourable member, Mr. Bélanger, phoned my house. He was trying to get votes to become Speaker of this House. My wife answered. My wife just retired as a school teacher and really isn't up on parliamentary procedures at all. Anyway, it was, “Who are you? What are you trying to do? Explain to me.”

Mr. Bélanger, who was trying to reach out to 337 more parliamentarians to get the vote to become Speaker of this House, took over an hour on the phone with my wife, explaining who he is, where he has come from, and the procedure of Parliament.

We had a non-partisan vote. There were many who were phoning our house. He happened to be the first, and he spent over an hour with my wife on the phone explaining the procedures, and as he was talking to my wife, his voice became weaker and weaker. When I eventually came home that night, as I arrived at the Saskatoon airport at 11:30 at night, I had a message to phone him, here's the number, here's the cell number. I didn't think at 1:30 in the morning I should phone Mr. Bélanger, but I did phone him the next morning very early, about five o'clock my time, which would have been six down here, and lo and behold he answered the phone and we had another hour conversation about the process.

As many of you know, we just went through the longest—historical really—campaign in the history of this country, in modern-day history, and a lot of us don't know the procedures when you first step into the House.

Then we've seen this here today and in the last couple of days and we're all going to go back to our offices and ask some questions. I know I am. I have some very experienced staff and I'm sure many of you are going to go back to your offices after this meeting and ask what the hell happened. This is because Parliament, it has become clear to me...and as a broadcaster for 40 years you think you know it all and then you become a school board trustee and you know a little bit of governance, and I know many of you have been trustees or administrators and you've moved on to municipal elections, but this is a higher calling and we've seen that in this House.

Madam Chair, you try to consult and, you know what, you've echoed those statements for the last seven months. You want to consult with Canadians. We didn't have the chance to consult properly on this bill.

I just wanted to share with my colleagues those two phone calls that the mover of this bill, maybe one of the biggest bills that we'll have to deal with in some of our parliamentarian history, made, one to my wife and then the next day, Saturday, when I talked to Mr. Bélanger. He wanted to be the Speaker of the House. He talked with me at great length about how Parliament is a higher calling.

I think this meeting was televised today. I just hope that coast to coast to coast people have seen that their democracy hasn't been heard on this bill and it's too bad, because whether this proceeds or not.... We understand that yesterday it was voted on at second reading, which is fine, but at the same time when you sit across and you hear you want to consult on this, you want to consult on that, I think it's fair to say that we did not consult on this one very much.

As we each head back to our ridings, I think you're going to hear this from Canadians. We're coming up to Canada Day on July 1. All of us will be back in our ridings, hopefully, giving the word to our constituents on Canada Day and we're going to hear a lot from constituents, what happened? Why was this rushed through three to four weeks ago?

I simply want to share my experience with the mover of this bill and the procedure of Parliament, because most Canadians don't understand the procedures. As new parliamentarians here, and there are many first-time parliamentarians six or seven months in, we have broken some of the rules here today in Parliament. I hope we all go back to our offices and have a deep consultation with our experienced staff members, and make sure this never happens again.

This is a procedure where we have one of the top historians in the country, whether you agreed with his views or not...it was a great insight, what Mr. Champion had to say here today. Unfortunately, he had 45 minutes but was called for an hour; hearing from him for another 15 minutes wouldn't have hurt this committee. Whether we agreed with his views or not, as I said, he talked about history and where this national anthem came from.

Madam Chair, I want on the record, as a first-time parliamentarian six or seven months in, I'm really disappointed in this process. I was disappointed more than once, because I thought this heritage committee when I first came here was about working together, and I think we have on the media. I think we all sat down and agreed that we were going to work on what is happening in the media. Then all of a sudden, we got derailed on a simple procedure like this, and now it's not right.

This committee has been hailed by many parliamentarians here as the one that has been working together more than any other. Now it has been derailed by what has happened this past week. It's shameful, Madam Chair. Whether it's Mr. Nantel or others, we've enjoyed one another. Many of my Liberal colleagues meet at heritage events and we have all agreed that we've really enjoyed this.

Why did we rush this? Now we've derailed, you know, consenting views. We didn't have to do this. Only another consultation is all we needed, because this heritage committee deserves that.

We started off very well in the fall, as I mentioned, but I'm fearful where this committee is going following this private member's bill that we presented here. I feel for the independent member from Nunavut. It's interesting because we've all heard his issues. One of our colleagues has gone through that issue. Maybe some of us know others who have gone through those issues. To leave him out of this process, to me, indicates we're not thinking of the 338 parliamentarians who we bring together in the House.

That's all I'll say on this matter.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Thank you, Mr. Waugh.

I will now call the question.

Shall the schedule carry?

Do you wish to have a recorded vote?

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

Yes, please.

(Schedule agreed to: yeas 6; nays 3)

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Shall the title carry?

Mr. Van Loan.

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

A recorded vote, please.

(Title agreed to: yeas 6; nays 3)

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Shall the bill carry?

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

A recorded vote, please.

(Bill C-210 agreed to: yeas 6; nays 3)

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Shall the chair report the bill to the House?