Canadian Heritage Committee on May 10th, 2021

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Ms. Harder, I have you, and then Mr. Housefather, Mr. Champoux and Mr. Shields.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

I have a quick comment on this motion. I think we're making significant—

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

A point of order, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

One moment. I have Mr. Champoux on a point of order.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

When Ms. Harder was speaking, we had no interpretation into French.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Since it was English to French, I'll keep talking right now.

Ladies and gentlemen, I come to you from the proud part of central Newfoundland.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

The interpretation is back, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Ms. Harder, you have the floor.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Thank you, Chair. I have a brief comment here.

First off, I think this motion is being strengthened as we go along. Ms. McPherson has offered to change it from “separately”, and we've obviously agreed to take that out. I think that's fine.

I think point 3 is very important. It is that we would suspend clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-10 until the completion of both points 1 and 2. We know why this is important: It is because we feel that this charter statement is absolutely necessary in order to make the best decisions going forward.

Hearing from those witnesses is going to also give us a better understanding of this bill. Here's why that is of utmost importance: We see that the Minister of Heritage himself is struggling to answer some really basic questions about this bill. If he himself doesn't have a full understanding of what this legislation does and does not do, and is not able to clearly communicate on that point, then I'm confused as to why this committee would be expected to have a clear understanding of this piece of legislation.

I think it's incumbent upon all of us, then, to seek the input from those who would be able to give us better insight and help us to clearly understand the parameters of this bill and what it does. Within that, I'm talking about witnesses, but I'm also talking about the charter statement, which we know will have fundamentally changed since the bill was first introduced in the fall, which was when the original charter statement was provided.

Obviously, because of those changes, a new charter statement is the responsible thing to seek, and it will help us do a better job as legislators and rightly represent Canadians.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Go ahead, Mr. Housefather.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

When I put forward the motion, I tried to create a consensus on two points: one, that we get a charter statement; two, that the ministers testify about a charter statement put out by the Department of Justice. It wasn't to create ministers as a panel of witnesses that were partisan. The ministers were there to deal with a statement put out by the Department of Justice. However, if there is a desire, I can also think of many experts who are as proficient in this matter as Michael Geist is. If there is a desire to have an expert panel for each of the four parties represented on the committee—not three of the four, but all four—can I suggest that we subamend Mr. Waugh's proposal to say that we would have two different panels? We would have one with the ministers and their officials, hopefully on Friday of this week, so that we can move forward, and one at our next meeting, on the Monday of the next week, with each party putting forward an expert witness to testify on that panel.

If we could subamend Mr. Waugh's proposal to do that, hopefully then we would have a consensus to move forward and get everything done. We could then move back to clause-by-clause study after the charter statement, the ministers' appearance, and the expert panel. Even if I wanted to continue clause-by-clause study at this point, I can see, based on our last three meetings, that we're never going to have the ability to actually do that until these things happen.

I look to Mr. Waugh, but I would be happy to subamend his amendment to do that. Maybe I just did.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

I have to go to Mr. Champoux.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The same thought occurs to me. After all the time we have spent on this, if the Ministers are not ready to come and testify as soon as possible, and if the new charter statement is not yet ready, we have a problem.

So, basically, I agree. I had a former colleague who used to say that, often, to come to a decent agreement, everyone needs to leave a little blood on the table. Compromises have to be made and this one seems acceptable to me. We will count on our Liberal colleagues to put all the pressure they need for the Ministers to be ready to come and testify before the committee as quickly as possible. We all agree that “as quickly as possible” is this Friday. Then, at the next meeting, as Mr. Housefather proposed, we could welcome one witness per party represented around this table. We could then finally resume our work and hope to be able to see Bill C-10 adopted. The bill is so important for our industry.

The compromise is perfectly acceptable, I feel. So I am in favour

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Okay, let's go back to what was just said prior.

Mr. Housefather, I'm going to call you to the floor once again, if it's okay.

You moved a subamendment. We're going to seek clarification on what that subamendment is.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Certainly, Mr. Chairman. As opposed to Mr. Waugh's original amendment, which simply added Dr. Geist, I would propose to replace the words “Dr. Michael Geist” with “an expert panel consisting of one witness from each party that would testify”.

So that everyone understands my meaning, we'd have one panel with the two ministers and their department officials and one panel that would consist of one expert named by each party on this committee.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Okay. Things are going fast and furious here.

I'm sorry, Mr. Housefather; I didn't mean to cut you off. Were you finished?

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Yes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Mr. Housefather, I'm going to encapsulate what you just said. Here's a précis of what's been done, just so that everyone has the same understanding.

What Mr. Housefather wants to do with his subamendment is to take the amendment of Mr. Waugh, maintain “Minister of Justice” and “Minister of Canadian Heritage”, but instead of “Dr. Michael Geist” have “an expert panel with one witness from each recognized party”. That would be four in total: one each from the Liberals, Conservatives, Bloc, and the NDP. I see Mr. Housefather nodding, so I'm assuming that characterizes what he wants to do.

We can open up debate on that if you wish, or we can proceed to a vote. Do I see hands? I know you have your virtual hands up. Now I see that hands have to go up if you wish to discuss it.

Very good. I have to go back to the speaking order, which now shows Mr. Shields.

[Martin Shields, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Just for clarification, we had a unanimous vote that we could go back and deal with clauses after we get those statements. Is that correct?

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

No. The way it works, Mr. Shields, is that we had to rule out number 3 as it was originally opposed. We need to have unanimous consent in order to reopen amendments that we have already dispensed with.

What I mentioned to Ms. McPherson is very simply that in order to do that, I have to ask that you adjourn this debate with a clarification or a qualifier that you will proceed to a unanimous consent. In other words, we're going to road-test this thing, go to unanimous consent and see if it is there.

If it is or if it isn't, we get to go back to Mr. Housefather's motion, which has been amended and now subamended.

I hope that's clear as mud.

That's the issue of unanimous consent. We have to exit, do it, and come back in.

[Martin Shields, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

That's a good statement, clear as mud. I mean, when was mud clear? That's interesting.

What I do find is interesting in the discussion about adding witnesses from all, and Mr. Housefather would know this, is that often when things change during the process of dealing with an issue in court, lawyers often ask for recalling of witnesses because more information and more testimony has come forward.

I understand what he is doing by adding those witnesses, as has been asked for, because that's what you would want to do. That's why we had suggested that at the beginning.

I think that's important, and I appreciate his work to try to facilitate our work. We are in a process in which things are changing, and everybody gets the opportunity to recall on this particular issue because it has changed significantly in the last few weeks. I appreciate that.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Thank you, Mr. Shields.

Now we have a quick clarification. As my reverend friend would say, please open your hymn books to the amendment from Mr. Waugh. We are now currently on a subamendment by Mr. Housefather to require a panel of four witnesses, one from each party, in addition to the Minister of Justice and the Minister of Canadian Heritage.

Go ahead, Ms. Harder.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Thank you.

Chair, not to complicate things more, but—

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

I don't know if that's possible, madam.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Yes.

Actually, just in hopes of speaking some clarity, is there any chance of getting the amendment and the subamendment in writing so we know exactly what it is we're discussing right now?