Canadian Heritage Committee on June 14th, 2021

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Before I go to Mr. Rayes, yes, that's going to be part of the discussion we can have regarding the whole schedule in the broader context as to what we do first. We have to line that up.

In the meantime I will do some consulting about this, Ms. McPherson. I think you raise a very good point as to the scope of the study. I'll leave it at that for now. We can probably discuss this again a little later. Thank you for bringing that up.

Mr. Rayes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I fully agree with my colleague Mr. Champoux's premise regarding the motion to undertake a study.

With respect to Ms. McPherson's question, if we are going to undertake a study, it should be of all sports, not just one. I coached soccer for 26 years and I can tell you that I've seen several cases of coaches or officials who have been found guilty. If we initiate a study to provide relevant information to all parliamentarians and to determine what can be done, that study should look at all sports.

That being said, I'd like to go back to my request for a motion, which I believe had already carried. My motion only asks for one meeting, and I feel we need to devote more than one meeting to Mr. Champoux's request if we are to do our job properly.

I believe we have two more meetings from now to the end of the session. So maybe we could see what can be done in the short term, even if it means having a meeting to lay the groundwork if we come back to the House in the fall, so that we can do our job well on the issue that Mr. Champoux is raising.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Madame Bessette.

[Lyne Bessette, Liberal, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Champoux, Mr. Rayes, I understand— [Technical difficulty].

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Madame Bessette, I apologize. The interpreters are having a problem with your sound. I think it might be cutting in and out.

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

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

We can't hear Mrs. Bessette. Perhaps the sound would be better if she turned off her camera.

[Lyne Bessette, Liberal, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Can you hear me now?

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

I can hear you now, but go ahead and we'll see how it goes.

[Lyne Bessette, Liberal, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

I want to say that we will need more than a few meetings to do this study on athletes.

Actually, I think the problem is too big to be studied in one or two meetings. You all know that I have been in the sports world. So that's the comment I wanted to make.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Thank you, Mrs. Bessette.

Folks, we have a couple of things to consider here. I know that during committee business we normally do this in camera. We have a choice. We can either stay in public or we can go in camera to discuss the committee business. It appears I need a motion to do that, and I can't move the motion myself to go in camera. Otherwise we have to stay public. Would anyone like to move a motion, or no?

Mr. Rayes.

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

Mr. Chair, if members want the rest of the meeting to be public so that we can save time, I don't see a problem with that, unless you want to have the rest of the meeting in camera or someone says that is essential. I feel the issues we are discussing could be of public interest. I don't see a problem with that and it would save us time technically.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Okay. As I said, I have no issues being in public either. It's just that every time we've done meetings talking about the future schedule, we've always done them in camera. I'm just doing this based on our usual practice, but if you want to stay in public, that's fine; we can do that. If you don't, you can just move a motion to go in camera.

Mr. Champoux.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

I'm very much in favour of Mr. Rayes's proposal to hold the rest of the meeting in public. I believe what we are discussing today is not secret or confidential in any way. We advocate transparency on the committee, so let's set an example.

I also noted Mrs. Bessette's comments and, indeed, I don't expect that we can resolve this issue or debate it in just one or two meetings. It's going to take a lot more than that, absolutely. However, I do feel that we need to start the work, because we need to do it at some point and it hasn't been done yet. Also, we need to show the athletes that we have heard them and that we finally understand the issue. We need to tell them that even though it is late, we're taking action, we're doing something for them and we're making sure that this kind of environment in amateur sport or in high-performance sport will never be tolerated again under any pretext or circumstances.

It's fine with me that we have one meeting, but continue the work afterwards. However, we need to make it clear to the athletes, coaches, and all those around our athletes in amateur and high-performance sport that we understand the problem, that we feel it is late, but that something needs to happen.

I propose that we at least lay the groundwork for what we want to do on this. We can pick up there, whatever happens this summer, but please, let's start the work. Let's show them that we care about this and that we are as outraged by it as we should be.

I will let us discuss it, but no matter how much time is left, we must begin this study.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Okay. Before I go to Ms. Dabrusin, I'll just start right now. We've started in committee business, just so that everyone knows. I certainly have no problem going public. That's great. We'll stay in public for now. We'll talk about the business. What I'm going to do is list the motions that we have passed for upcoming studies and other things we want to look at as well. Before I do that, however, I'll go to Ms. Dabrusin.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I think it's a good idea to go through the list of the motions, because there are many. One that I wanted to highlight was the one that was brought by Mr. Waugh, which I think many Canadians—certainly, when I'm speaking with my constituents—would be very interested in knowing more about.

It would seem that, given that it involves getting department officials, which might be a little easier than getting general witness lists together, it's something that we could probably move towards, even by this Friday. I know we have a long list of motions to consider, but if I could put my support for moving that towards the top of the list for the end of this week, for our next meeting, that's where I would put it. I see Mr. Waugh giving his thumbs up. I'm only speaking for him because he can't speak today because of his sound issues. Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

That was very generous of you.

I'm not moving off of the issue about sports; I will get back to that in just a few moments. Right now, though, I will give you the broad context of what we're looking at over the next little while, upcoming studies or ones already before the committee.

The supplementary estimates (A) are to be considered, as we normally do. The seventh allotted day, Thursday, June 19, is really our deadline for reporting them back. It's too late to do votes on supplementary estimates (A), as Bill C-10 took a big chunk of the time, but we can study the estimates as subject matter. I'll just leave that right there, that we can do that if you so desire.

Let's get into the motion on anti-Asian racism that was adopted on March 26. I don't have to go through the whole motion. It was just talked about. I will say, however, that there was one stipulation in it that said, “no later than 180 calendar days from the adoption of this motion; and that, pursuant to Standing Order 109, the government table a comprehensive response.” Now, 180 calendar days from the adoption of the motion on March 26 is Tuesday, September 21. Please bear that in mind. That's basically when we come back. I forget the actual date.

On to the next one, which was adopted on April 12:

That the Committee devote at least one meeting before the summer recess to hear from witnesses on the continuing challenges for publishers, creators and artists as it pertains to fair compensation for their work in...educational publishing in Canada.

That's number three.

We also have this motion, which was adopted on June 11. It reads, in part, as follows:

That the Committee invite officials from the Department of Canadian Heritage to testify about the funding for the discovery of the remains of 215 Indigenous children on the grounds of a former residential school in Kamloops....

That was from Mr. Waugh.

We also have the ongoing issue of Facebook, and the correspondence we've had since our summons to Mr. Zuckerberg, about his appearing before committee. I can brief you on that so far, and perhaps Mr. Housefather can as well, as he's been involved. There is that issue.

We just adopted the motion by Ms. McPherson regarding the deal from 2017—the agreement between Netflix and the Department of Canadian Heritage.

The final one would be the independent body for complaints in sport as a study we look into, as we just spoke about.

Before I go for comments, I want to highlight those two things regarding a timeline.

We have the anti-Asian racism motion, which talks about “no later than 180 days from the adoption of the motion”, which takes us to September 21. The educational publishing issue asks for one meeting before the summer recess.

Now I'll ask for comments.

Oh, good. I see Mr. Champoux.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

You look happy to be giving the floor to someone, Mr. Chair!

I have some questions and proposals that could be discussed.

My first question is about the study on anti-Asian racism. I remember very well the context in which we passed the motion on this issue. Obviously, we're all very committed to completing the study, but didn't think at the time it was proposed that Bill C‑10 would take us so long.

On the one hand, I'd like to know what will happen if we don't meet the September 21 deadline. Since we aren't likely to be in session this summer and we don't really know what will happen this fall, what would the consequences of not meeting that deadline be?

At the same time, can we commit to giving this study priority upon returning to the House and request an extension on the deadline, given the circumstances and the fact that Bill C‑10 took longer to complete?

My second question is actually a proposal, and it has to do with Mr. Rayes and his expectations regarding copyright. Copyright is very important to me as well. We had made a promise to Mr. Rayes and to ourselves that we would deal with this issue, because it is urgent and needs to be addressed.

With respect to the issue of harassment and abuse in high-performance sport, I propose that we begin the study on Friday. We could call in officials and one to three representatives from sports federations that we would like to hear from as part of the study. On Monday, we could do the study we promised Mr. Rayes we would do on copyright.

This would make for a busy end to the committee's session, but an extremely efficient one as well.

I am throwing the proposal out there and comments are welcome.

We are also left with the September 21 deadline that we are unlikely to meet.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Thank you, Mr. Champoux.

Just before I go to Ms. McPherson, for clarification, there are no punishments per se if we ignore a deadline. These are just self-imposed deadlines, and there are no heavy ramifications if we do not meet them. However, you would need to move a motion if you want to change something within that, as far as the dates are concerned. I hear what you're saying.

Ms. McPherson.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I just brought up the House calendar. We would have one meeting in September before the deadline, so I just wanted to clarify that it would be possible to have a meeting.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Yes. Thank you.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Certainly this is a topic that is very important to me, and it's very important to all members on this committee, I am sure, that we examine this. Unfortunately, as many have said, the work on Bill C-10 took much longer than we anticipated, and we have not been able to get to our other pieces of work.

The only thing I want to raise, which I think is important, is the motion Mr. Waugh brought forward regarding the minister visiting or the officials visiting with regard to the children who were found in Kamloops.

I say that because, of course, it's urgent; it's timely, and it's something we need to look at. I would not want the committee to let that fall off either, though I recognize that we are looking down the barrel of three meetings and that is all we have left together.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Yes, we have three meetings left.

Just for clarification, in September we don't really have the schedule per se. If we maintain the current one then, yes, Ms. McPherson is right that we would have one meeting, so please bear that in mind. That is, of course, dealing with anti-Asian racism, and our self-imposed deadline is September 21.

Ms. Dabrusin.

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

I think we're slowly coming to a bit of agreement on the idea of starting with Mr. Waugh's study. I am not seeing complete agreement, but at least I think I heard that from Ms. McPherson as well. Given that it's Indigenous History Month and that Indigenous Peoples Day is on Monday, there are a lot of reasons, and I think it's a pressing issue that many Canadians are very concerned about.

My suggestion with regard to ordering, which is what we're talking about at this point, is that we could start with that study on Friday. Then on Monday, if we wanted to, we could go to Mr. Rayes's study about copyright, which requires a meeting before the end of the sitting.

The sports study, I agree, is important. The only concern, if I heard Ms. Bessette correctly, is that it requires more time than just one meeting, so that gives us some time to actually come up with a full witness list and a study plan, so that maybe could be what we would choose to kick off with when we get back in September.

That is my suggestion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Thank you, Ms. Dabrusin.

You're proposing this Friday to start with Mr. Waugh's study, and then on Monday to go to the copyright study—the publishing one.

All right. We've heard those.

Mr. Champoux.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Waugh's motion is extremely important, but I wonder how much of it falls under the purview of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage and not the Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs.

Many issues are dealt with by our committee and others at the same time, but in this case, I wonder why this issue is not instead being dealt with as a priority by the Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs rather than the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage.