Evidence of meeting #45 for Canadian Heritage in the 43rd Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was meeting.
A recording is available from Parliament.
11 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Scott Simms
Welcome, everybody, back to the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage. Of course, today we are doing some committee business. That is true. However, I think in the first part we want to deal with any of the motions we have out there that we'd like to discuss at this point.
I see a hand up. Monsieur Champoux.
11 a.m.
Bloc
Martin Champoux Bloc Drummond, QC
Mr. Chair, I'd like to ensure that we have an opportunity to address the motion referred to us by the House asking that we discuss the issue of sexual harassment and psychological abuse of sports athletes. The motion was referred to us by unanimous consent in the House on April 28. I'd like us to discuss it and I wanted to wait for your cue to talk about it.
11 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Scott Simms
Absolutely, Mr. Champoux. That's one of the things I wanted to bring up.
As far as the order of things goes, I see that I have two other people who would like to weigh in, so let me deal with that first before we get to some sort of an agenda about these motions.
Ms. McPherson.
11 a.m.
NDP
Heather McPherson NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I would also like to bring forward the motion that I have given notice of. I'll read it, if that's your pleasure.
11 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Scott Simms
Yes, okay. I want to take this sort of as it goes. Can I go to Mr. Rayes first?
11 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Scott Simms
I'm just trying to come up with an agenda in my head as to what we want to do first.
Mr. Rayes, you have the floor.
11 a.m.
Conservative
Alain Rayes Conservative Richmond—Arthabaska, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Like my colleagues, I'd like to remind everyone that I introduced a motion calling for a meeting before the end of the session, after Bill C‑10, to address the issue of copyright and compensation for publishers, creators and artists. Unless I am mistaken, that motion had carried.
I wanted to issue that little reminder, because I know we have several issues to address. Now, it seems to me that we agreed to devote at least one meeting to the topic, before the end of the session and after the study on Bill C‑10.
11 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Scott Simms
The short answer is that yes, we did.
Now, Mr. Rayes, do you want me to deal with that in the public portion of the meeting, or do you want to wait until committee business? I was planning to bring it up at committee business. Do you want to deal with it before we go to committee business?
11:05 a.m.
Conservative
Alain Rayes Conservative Richmond—Arthabaska, QC
I don't have a problem with that. I like the fact that we're working in a collegial manner, except for a couple of weeks that were a little difficult.
Mr. Chair, I just wanted to make that reminder, and I will count on you to tell me when to bring this up with all the committee members. The other motions from my fellow members are very relevant and Mr. Waugh's is also very intriguing.
11:05 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Scott Simms
Okay. I'll leave that for committee business. I plan to bring that up first when we get into committee business, Monsieur Rayes.
From what I see right now, we have two things to deal with. We have on the table to discuss Ms. McPherson's motion from Friday, June 4. You all have a copy of that. We then go into the motion that was passed unanimously in the House on April 28. We'll get to that in just a few moments.
How about we deal with Ms. McPherson's issue first? She requested at the last meeting that it be brought up and be in public.
Ms. McPherson, you have the floor.
11:05 a.m.
NDP
Heather McPherson NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
It's nice to see everybody on this Monday morning.
I will read the motion, and then I can discuss a bit why I think it is something we should be supportive of. The motion is:
That the Department of Canadian Heritage table with the committee, no later than June 20, 2021, a copy of the initial agreement, including any subsequent amendments, in both official languages, between Canadian Heritage and Netflix Canada, signed in 2017 and entered into under the Investment Canada Act.
I have brought this motion forward because I have some concerns, having seen the exemption for Netflix in the 2021 budget, and I'm worried that without being able to understand what is in that agreement, without being able to understand what is being given or what gifts are being given to Netflix, it's very difficult for us to understand whether it's an appropriate playing field, a level playing field, for the broadcasting sector.
From my perspective, it is worrying to see Netflix being excluded. I think that for us as committee members to do our job, it's important that we have an opportunity to examine this and ensure that it meets the highest standards that we would expect to be undertaken for this. That's why I've brought the motion forward. I can answer any questions anyone might have, but I think it is part of our job to make sure our broadcasting sector is not disproportionately privileging one company over others, and certainly not a company that is not a Canadian company over others. That's my motion. I'd like your support, please.
11:05 a.m.
Liberal
Julie Dabrusin Liberal Toronto—Danforth, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
What I absolutely disagree with is the premise underlying the motion, about Netflix facing exclusions. I think most people who are Netflix subscribers have probably received a notice, in fact, of the company's intention to be contributing towards Canadian taxes. Regardless of that part, I actually think that in the interests of transparency, I would support this motion, but I disagree with the premise and think that there are some inaccuracies that would need to be addressed. Perhaps when everyone takes a good look at C-10, as well as their Netflix notifications and the actual budget implementation act, that might be clarified.
11:05 a.m.
Bloc
Martin Champoux Bloc Drummond, QC
I agree with much of what my colleague said, Mr. Chair. I fully support the motion.
I am surprised, by the way, that we need to request documents of which we should have known at least the broad outlines long ago. This agreement certainly has significant implications and consequences that we should be aware of. In the interest of transparency, it's the least we can do to secure access to the broad outlines of this agreement between the government and Netflix. I fully support this motion.
11:05 a.m.
Conservative
Alain Rayes Conservative Richmond—Arthabaska, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I concur.
Since we want to discuss other business, and, to save time, I would ask for a vote on Ms. McPherson's motion. I think you will quickly realize that we have consensus on that motion.
11:05 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Scott Simms
Okay, very good, Mr. Rayes. You've inspired us to move on.
Seeing no further comment on that, we now go to a vote. You've all seen, read and heard what was put forward by Ms. McPherson. All those in favour?
11:05 a.m.
Some hon. members
Agreed.
11:05 a.m.
Chair
I'll bring this up again in the next conversation, folks, when we talk about the agenda that is coming up, but right now, we're going on to what was accepted in the House by unanimous consent. It was resolved.
Mr. Champoux, before I give you the floor, we're just going to paraphrase some of this stuff. It's just a précis, if you don't mind.
That, following the allegations of psychological abuse, neglect, sexual harassment and racial discrimination of five former members of the Canada Artistic Swimming (CAS) Senior National Team by coaches and staff, the House:
This is where I'll cut some of it down. It's fairly lengthy. It goes on:
(a) recognize that national sports organizations are environments which, due in particular to the extremely intense competitive atmosphere
and so on. Then it says:
(b) recognize that it is the responsibility of the government to do everything in its power to protect our high performance athletes
and:
(c) ask the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage to undertake a study on the establishment of an independent body for handling complaints in sport which will establish a climate of trust so that victims can report without fear of reprisals
I know you all have a copy. I thought I would just do that in case anybody is watching us through a webcast, but that's what we're discussing.
Mr. Champoux, you have the floor.
11:10 a.m.
Bloc
Martin Champoux Bloc Drummond, QC
I will be brief, Mr. Chair, because you summed things up pretty well.
This motion received unanimous consent in the House. I assume my colleagues are already somewhat aware of what this is all about.
I remind you that major sporting events will gradually resume, including the Olympics. The allegations and incidents that we are seeing in various amateur sports circles are nothing new. High-performance athletes have often experienced this tension and had to live with harassment for many years.
I would even say that people close to committee members have been athletes, or are athletes, or are part of the sports world, and could testify to this themselves. They may have themselves witnessed incidents of this kind during their athletic careers. We need to address this issue as a matter of extreme urgency because these events have been allowed to go unchecked for too long. Every time it happens, it gets swept under the rug. Penalties are imposed, but nothing concrete is done to address the root of the problem.
In the short time remaining in this session, we have a duty to begin a study, which may be brief, but must be effective, for the sake of our athletes. We owe it to them. It's of the utmost importance. I find it unacceptable that athletes who aspire to high performance levels can be put at risk in situations like this. It's heartbreaking and revolting. This is a very legitimate motion and we should give it our utmost attention.
Thank you.
11:10 a.m.
NDP
Heather McPherson NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
I just have a very quick question about this. From my understanding, the scope of this motion is that it would look particularly at artistic swimming, but we know that athletes across Canada in a number of different sports would actually be impacted in similar ways. It is not something that is unique to artistic swimming. Would there be scope to examine this outside of that, or, because of the time constraints we have, will we be looking solely at one sport as opposed to any others?