Canadian Heritage Committee on Oct. 23rd, 2020

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I know that it does take some time for us to go into the in camera session. We could perhaps start having a conversation about the sectors we'd like to have represented in general terms, not specific terms. Perhaps that would prevent our having to take the 20 minutes or so to go in camera. I think probably what we need to do is make a point of coming together with our lists from our own parties that we would bring forward at a later date with individual people.

This may be able to stay out of in camera, from my perspective.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

How about we deal with the issue of the longer list of witnesses in the future? In the meantime, I guess we can do this without going in camera. We can discuss the first witness, to get things started for next week, rather than doing committee business again.

Tom.

[The Clerk]

Ms. Dabrusin has her hand raised, sir.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Ms. Dabrusin.

[Julie Dabrusin, Liberal, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

As far as the first order goes, I don't think it's particularly contentious. We often call the department to start things off. I think everyone would probably feel comfortable with seeing if they are available, if that's something that's possible. Then we can agree to a date by which we as a group would submit witness lists, and we can go from there at a future meeting.

I think you said you didn't want a subcommittee. Then we could talk about it at another meeting, or perhaps even at our next meeting. I guess we have to go through a witness list and agree to it. If we have only one meeting each week, maybe we have to have committee business and then move over to witnesses. I don't know. I will leave it to you as to how that will mesh up.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Mr. Waugh and then Mr. Rayes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I agree with Ms. Dabrusin. I think the first step next Friday would be to have officials from the heritage department. There has been a lot of money handed out over the last seven months, and needless to say a lot of us have seen some announcements, but we do have to get a better grasp, I think, countrywide of who has been a so-called beneficiary of the Heritage money that has been handed out. That would be a good start.

I agree with Ms. Dabrusin. If the officials could come in next Friday, that would be a good start. Then I think all of us around the table would have a better grasp of who has been helped and who hasn't been helped. Then we could see whether there were any gaps in the situation that we could address, and we could bring those people forward to committee.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Monsieur Rayes.

[Alain Rayes, Conservative, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

I completely agree with the two people who spoke before me.

I also suggest that we focus on officials next week. That way, it would be easier for the clerk to organize everything.

I also suggest, as we did during the discussion among the four party representatives last week, that each party set a deadline of next Wednesday for sending the clerk a list of potential witnesses who could appear before the committee and answer our questions. We could take a few minutes to discuss this next Friday, but only if necessary.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Thank you, Mr. Rayes.

So there are three things. How about for next Friday's meeting, number one, we have departmental officials; number two, we go in camera for a discussion of the list; and, number three, that each party provide a list to the clerk, as Monsieur Rayes pointed out, by Wednesday?

Does anyone take any exception to that? Everyone's okay. I think that's probably a good plan for next week.

Mr. Waugh.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Will this be a broad discussion on arts or on sports? This is a pretty broad thing we're going to be discussing. I just need to better grasp how many areas we are going to be discussing, because we could do arts; we could do, as I said, sports; we could do 15 different things.

I think next Wednesday might be a little early for me, because I don't know what the officials are going to tell us next Friday with regard to who got helped and who didn't. I am having some issues there.

I would like to hear from the officials how much money went out, where it went to and what the gaps are. I think I will need to know what the gaps are, following next Friday, to make a submission for the list. I think we're putting the cart before the horse here.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Monsieur Champoux.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

I understand my colleague Mr. Waugh's point. However, I thought that, by meeting with officials from the Department of Canadian Heritage next Friday, we could go all over the map and cover all the sectors referred to in the motion, without necessarily prioritizing or sticking to certain sectors. At the same time, I understand that this will probably be a decisive factor for the future.

Could we amend our witness list, especially since, on November 6, we'll probably set this topic aside temporarily to meet with the minister and officials?

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Thank you both. That is a valid point in many ways. I'm not trying to prejudice the argument, because normally, with two meetings a week, we could hear from the officials and then consider who we'd like to bring in.

I think Mr. Waugh's point is valid. Do we provide an amendable list by Wednesday, or do we just wait on the list until we talk to the officials? Unfortunately, we have only one meeting per week.

Is there any discussion on that?

[The Clerk]

Just quickly, sir, I have both Ms. Dabrusin and then Ms. McPherson in the room. Ms. McPherson is first and then Ms. Dabrusin will be after that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Ms. McPherson.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

I think probably Ms. Dabrusin and I were going to say similar things.

Knowing that we have a meeting only once a week and knowing that we really do want to get moving on this and that there is an awful lot of work to do on this, I would agree with your recommendation that we have a list that could be amended if we realize that there are gaps in our witness list once we've heard from the specialists next Friday. That would be my recommendation.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Ms. Dabrusin.

[Julie Dabrusin, Liberal, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

I'll support what Ms. McPherson said. My experience too is that, especially with only one meeting time that you can accommodate, it may be hard to get witnesses to fit in within specific times, so it's better that we at least get that ball rolling. There are probably some higher-level witnesses to get the ball rolling, and then we can move from there.

Maybe there could be two lists, with two dates, but it would be something for us to at least get started.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

If I may interject again, first I was thinking that maybe we should wait on the list, but there are some people that we should obviously invite, so how about that by Wednesday we all provide an initial list? It could include just a few names, if you wish, but that would allow our clerk and table officers to do some research and to get some work done to ramp up to a situation in which we'd have a full, broad list of witnesses.

How about I recommend that we provide an initial list by Wednesday, that on Friday we have our meeting with the officials, and then we go into committee business in camera following that? We can have a discussion about what was said, and then you can provide another list based on what we've heard.

Okay, I see a fair amount of agreement. Thank you, folks, for that. I appreciate it.

That takes cares of Friday. I feel that we probably should not go any further than that, given the situation we are in, especially with one meeting per week and its being at the end of the week. Let's just deal with next Friday to begin with, and we'll see what happens afterwards.

Thank you. This also leads me to believe that we have no need for a subcommittee right now, but we can discuss that again next week if you wish.

Mr. Waugh, go ahead.

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

So would the officials come in for one hour, or are we going to extend? How long do we need them for—an hour, an hour and a half, a half-hour?

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

That's a valid point.

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

Yes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

How about I propose they come in for, I'll say, an hour and a half maximum? If we need more than that, we can take it. I think our in camera discussion about future witnesses probably won't take more than 30 minutes, but let's just give the officials 90 minutes.

Go ahead, Tom.

[The Clerk]

I have Ms. Dabrusin on the floor, and I might have a quick comment as well.