Canadian Heritage Committee on June 14th, 2021

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

Mr. Chair, can I answer that question?

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

One moment, please.

The question was directed at Mr. Waugh. I probably should give him the option of voicing his opinion, if he so desires, or I could just go to Ms. Dabrusin.

Mr. Waugh, could you just hold your microphone close to your mouth when you speak?

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

Yes. I believe it is timely, Mr. Chair. That is the reason. Canadian Heritage gave $40,000 as a grant for the radar ground penetration. Other indigenous groups are asking if they can get the same grant for the machine, to find the bodies spread out over this country.

I know you're having trouble hearing me, so that's all I'll say. The heritage department gave the $40,000 for the radar equipment, and that's why there are big stories about this everywhere in this country.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Okay.

Ms. Dabrusin, did you want to comment on that?

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

Just to reaffirm what Mr. Waugh said, it was the pathway to healing program, and it was a heritage-funded part, so it does actually fall within heritage, this piece.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Thanks to both of you for that clarification.

Mr. Rayes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Ms. Dabrusin's proposal is very compelling, and the issue raised by Mr. Waugh is timely and topical. As the saying goes, “let's strike while the iron is hot”. So I feel we should, as Ms. Dubrasin suggests, start to address this issue on Friday. I also agree with her proposal to work on the copyright issue on Monday.

To follow through on Mr. Champoux's request to send a clear message, given the complexity of the issue, I feel we're going to spend a lot of time on the study he is requesting, which I want to say is very timely. Perhaps we could get a unanimous motion from the committee, which would demonstrate how important the issue is to us, so that when we return to the House, the committee will have been able to prepare over the summer and taken steps to present a plan. That way, all members will have time to send in their list of witnesses from different associations and experts on the subject and we could get to work on it as soon as the House is back in session. The subject will still be topical, I'm sure, because it's a big issue and we need to deal with it.

That would send a clear message, given the importance of the issue. Since we don't have enough time, we can start to tackle it, but postpone it until later. I would rather do it right when the House is back in session.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Mr. Housefather.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I also agree that it would be timely to do Mr. Waugh's study on Friday. I think everybody in the country is talking about what happened with residential schools, and as Monday is National Indigenous Peoples Day, I think this is the time to do it.

I'd like to address Mr. Champoux's question, because as a former athlete, I feel this is a really important issue. Perhaps on Monday we could invite representatives from two national organizations, including the Canadian Olympic Committee, just to kick off the study so that Canadians can address and discuss the issue over the summer. In the fall, we could return to the study in much greater depth.

This is a very important issue. I believe we could begin studying it on Monday, but I will concur with the committee's decision.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Thank you.

I'm seeing a couple of things here that are starting to line up. After today's meeting, we have two meetings left.

I'm hearing that we should start with the motion put forward regarding the Kamloops residential school issue on Friday, and then the following Monday we'll debate the motion on educational publishing in Canada.

Do I see any dissension from that? I don't see any, and it looks like we can put that to rest for the end of this spring.

I would like to have some direction, though, about where....

Mr. Louis, go ahead.

[Tim Louis, Liberal, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Are we limited? Mr. Waugh's motion is important. Is there a hard deadline if we find a good discussion? Does that have to stop in one meeting? Is that something we have to put in, or are we starting with that study?

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

That's a valid point. Here's what I will put forward for the committee to consider.

The deadline you speak of is on the calendar. It's September 21. We don't know what the exact schedule is going to be when we reconvene in September, when the House sits again, but we do have a hard deadline of 180 days.

Here's what we could do. On Friday, we will have our initial meeting, and at the end of that meeting, we can have a discussion as to where to go from here. Again, this is a self-imposed deadline. It's not as strict. Maybe at the end of that meeting, if a motion is required to change it, we can do that.

Does everyone understand? I'm just saying to have the first meeting this Friday, and at the end of that meeting we can make a decision on where to go from there.

Mr. Champoux, go ahead.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Chair, you say we're going to start the study at the first meeting, which is on Friday, but I'm not sure I understand what study you're talking about. The proposal we were discussing seemed to be to begin considering Mr. Waugh's motion and then consider Mr. Rayes's motion on Monday.

Currently, you seem to be talking about the anti-Asian racism study. Could you clarify that?

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

My goodness, yes, I was. You're right. I was wondering why people looked so puzzled. I confused the two. I apologize. The 180 calendar days was from the anti-Asian motion.

One of the great things about being the chair of this committee is that you're so much smarter than I am. You're the best. I love it.

Nevertheless, that aside, we should probably still run the same type of thing this coming Friday. This Friday, we can have the full meeting, and at the end of the meeting, we can make a decision from there.

How's that? Thank you for your patience.

On Monday, we can follow up with the educational publishing in Canada issue regarding copyright.

That being said, would you like to start a discussion as to what our priority could be when we come back?

Here's the situation. At the end of June, this type of format will not be sanctioned anymore. Obviously, something has to be done, but nevertheless, that sort of thing ends, so most of the conversations, I would assume, when it comes to organizing the fall, will occur offline.

We can correspond through Aimée, the clerk, and we can decide how we want to organize by helping to set up witnesses before we come back.

However, that being said, there are several motions there. Do we have any thoughts on what we'd like to do when we reconvene in the fall? I'm just looking for a general priority list.

I see Mr. Rayes.

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

Mr. Chair, I feel if you were to ask the entire committee, they would reply that we should start with the study requested by Mr. Champoux. There will be ample time for the clerks, analysts and staff to put together a plan so that we can send out the lists of witnesses that we would like to call for the study.

That is what we'd like to propose in order to send a clear message about the importance of this issue.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Does anyone else have any opinions on the fall? I won't say it would be written in stone, but possibly a priority list. I'll just leave it at that for now.

Seeing no further discussion, I'll leave Mr. Rayes' comment as the final comment on that.

We have two meetings left. We've come to the decision that on Friday, we will discuss Mr. Waugh's motion. We'll start that study. Then the following Monday we will have one meeting, as requested, on educational publishing in Canada. That will take us to the end of the spring sitting for the committee.

Is there any other business anyone wishes to discuss?

I apologize. Aimée just sent me a friendly little note reminding me about a witness list. We need some ideas on a witness list for this coming Friday.

Mr. Waugh, did you want to start? I don't know if you're able to put your hand up, but I think you may want to weigh in on this.

Could I just get you to hold on to your microphone again?

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

Yes. In the motion it was department officials. The second one was the chief of the residential schools from the Kamloops area. We may want more in the second hour, and that's fine, but the first hour would be the department officials, because I believe they've received a lot of requests for this branch. The second one would be Kamloops.

We can send you the information from Kamloops. We'll get some names and numbers for you.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Chair, unfortunately we have no interpretation.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

I'm sorry. I will just rephrase what Mr. Waugh said, which was that the people who are specifically mentioned in the motion are there. To expand on that, if you want others, you have to let us know as soon as possible.

Mr. Waugh, with a nod, were those the only people right now?

He says yes. The people mentioned in the motion are the people he wishes to invite for that particular meeting.

Madam Dabrusin.

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

Just following up on what Mr. Waugh said, there are certain witnesses who are listed directly within the motion. If there's a belief that we need additional witnesses, we could maybe provide some names by a certain date, rather than discussing it here.

You probably still have a full crew, based on what's said in the motion that Mr. Waugh set out. If, for some reason, part of that witness list doesn't work out, maybe it might make sense for us to have until.... I don't know. I would rely on the clerk for what's a reasonable timeline, given it's such a short timeline. We could provide additional names. Perhaps that might be one way of dealing with it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Mr. Champoux.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

If we make it possible to add more witnesses to fill the time left in the meeting schedule for this brief study, I'd like to know how that will work.

Obviously, we need to stick to a ratio. Generally, when the Liberal Party and the Conservative Party call four or five witnesses, the Bloc Québécois and the NDP only have one to call. We would then have to make sure that we still respect the fact that each party will want to call witnesses.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Yes. What I will do is this. We'll stick to the witness list as put in the motion itself, and then we can make a decision at the end of the meeting. I just wanted to make sure everyone was comfortable with that.

The other witness list I was speaking of was the one for Monday, which is Mr. Rayes's motion on educational publishing. We need to establish a deadline, which would be Wednesday, normally, two days from now. However, I would stress to everyone here, when it comes to that one meeting on educational publishing in Canada, please send the list to us as soon as possible, because we have to set it up. Since we have Friday and Monday meetings, it's like we have to set up witnesses for two meetings at once during the week.

I won't say anything further about the witness lists.

Mr. Rayes, it was your motion. Did you want to comment on any potential witnesses? Would you rather just send in your names in the next little while?

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

Mr. Chair, there are two major Canadian organizations. I'm sure that once each party sends you their list, the two main witnesses will be listed more than once. If we have a third, I will rely on your and your staff's expertise to complete the list. If I count correctly, since we will have a meeting, we will hear from no more than three groups.

I will have someone from my office send you the names of the two major organizations, if they have not already done so. We can even do it by the end of the meeting, if everyone agrees, and make it easier for you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Okay. If we need to discuss it on Friday at the end, I'll clear a few minutes for that as well. Friday and Monday, I have specific deadlines, and obviously Wednesday. Honestly, if you have someone in mind, please send it to us as soon as possible, given the tight time frame we are under.

That being said, is there anything further?

On these two meetings, do you want to do the format that we ended with before Bill C-10, which was a two-hour meeting with no break, and let's say we have...? Well, it doesn't matter how many witnesses we have.

Would you rather do the two hours with all witnesses, or would you rather break it up, hour to hour, and then have different witnesses?

Mr. Champoux.