Canadian Heritage Committee on May 10th, 2021

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Yes. Thank you.

Mr. Aitchison, I should have been clear. I apologize. Whenever I say “as soon as possible”, that's the next meeting.

[Scott Aitchison, Conservative, Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON]

Okay. I appreciate it. I heard all that. What I was asking about, though, is if there needs to be something in the motion that speaks to that or if this is sufficient the way it is.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Let me just put my own interpretation on it very quickly: If it passes in terms of who is coming in, I will endeavour to do that ASAP, because I get that this is the direction from the committee, or at least that's how I hear it.

After Mr. Aitchison, I have Mr. Waugh.

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

You've pretty well touched on some of the points that I was going to bring up, Mr. Chair.

Maybe what we do need, though, is the Minister of Justice for one hour by himself, the Minister of Canadian Heritage for one hour by himself, and the panel next week, if we form that panel either Monday or Wednesday.

We're a week away here. We might need some time to put this panel together. That would be a two-hour meeting. I know that you want to talk about this, but I just thought I would throw out the idea of one hour for the Minister of Justice, one hour for the Minister of Canadian Heritage separately, and then two hours for our panel next week.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Actually, Mr. Waugh, I'm glad you did that, only because it spells out some of the logistics involved here. For instance, in the case of the four people, our clerk, Aimée, has to find these people and book them and so on and so forth. I appreciate your bringing that up more than you know.

Just for the committee's permission here, I don't think we need to formalize the timing and so on and so forth, other than understanding that we will endeavour to do this as soon as we can, starting with the meeting on Friday, as proposed by Mr. Housefather. We can see logistically how this can work out.

I'm going to Mr. Champoux.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Chair, I think that Mr. Rayes had his hand up before mine. I was just going to ask for the vote.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

I don't have him up that way, but nevertheless, since you are ceding your time, we'll just proceed in that way.

Mr. Rayes, go ahead.

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

I will be quick so that Mr. Champoux can ask for the vote.

I want to make sure that we are all agreeing on the same thing: we are going to hear from the experts after we have heard from the two Ministers. That order is important, because the experts will be reacting to the Ministers' comments.

I see nodding.

I just want to make sure that, if, for any particular reason, the Liberals are not able to convince the Ministers to be here on Friday, they will come on Monday and the meeting with the experts will simply be put back.

Is that the case?

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

I don't need to repeat that, correct? I see enough nodding heads around the room. It's a critical mass of nods, if I could use the term, to proceed in that way.

My goodness, I don't see any hands up. What is going on with this world?

Anyway, seeing that there is no further discussion or no further debate, that brings us to a vote.

Let's be clear. We're voting on Mr. Housefather's subamendment to the motion put forward by him. What it states, very simply, is that we're going to take out the part that suggests Dr. Geist as a witness and replace it by saying that we're going to have an expert panel with one witness proposed by each recognized party—one from the Liberals, one from the Conservatives, one from the Bloc, and one from the NDP—along with the Minister of Justice and the Minister of Canadian Heritage. We will do this as soon as possible over the next little while, before we go on to anything else. That is the subamendment.

I am pausing to see if anyone has a question for clarification.

I don't see one. We will go to a vote.

(Subamendment agreed to: yeas 11; nays 0 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

Now we will go back to the amendment put forward by Mr. Waugh. There are three paragraphs. In paragraph 1, he takes the word “programs” out to put in the word “contents”.

In paragraph 2, the subamended amendment is, instead of Dr. Michael Geist, we now have an expert panel of four people in addition to the Minister of Justice and the Minister of Canadian Heritage.

Paragraph 3 would suspend clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-10 until the completion of both points 1 and 2, which I just read.

That is the amendment from Mr. Waugh. Seeing no discussion or debate—I see a lot of thumbs up—we will go to Madam Clerk for the vote. Shall the amendment carry?

(Amendment agreed to on division [See Minutes of Proceedings] )

Now we will return to the main motion of Mr. Housefather, which now includes three points, not two. I don't need to talk about this again. We are all clear as to what it is.

Shall the motion of Mr. Housefather carry?

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

Yes.

[Scott Aitchison, Conservative, Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON]

Yes.

(Motion agreed to on division [See Minutes of Proceedings])

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

That's carried. You're a beautiful bunch.

All right. The bells are ringing, and you know what that means. We have to go and do our duty.

Folks, thank you very much. I want to thank our guests as well, who played the part of spectators but nevertheless had a very important function—even you, Mr. Fillmore. Good job. Thank you.

All right, folks. We will adjourn until our next meeting, which will be this coming Friday at the usual time and usual place.

The meeting is adjourned.