Evidence of meeting #1 for Canadian Heritage in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was chair.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Hedy Fry
Given that I ruled the motion out of order, I guess you are challenging the chair and, therefore, wish for us to hear from others.
I will suspend for a minute so that you can talk amongst yourselves and decide what you want to do. The chair is challenged, so I will have to be guided by the committee.
We're suspending for a minute.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC
Thanks, Madam Chair.
Having spoken to my colleagues from all sides, I will withdraw that motion.
(Motion withdrawn)
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Hedy Fry
Thank you very much, Mr. Julian.
This motion is not going to be voted on so we shall move on.
Monsieur Champoux.
Bloc
Martin Champoux Bloc Drummond, QC
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I have two motions that are more in the spirit of the actual work of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, work we are all eager to tackle in a meaningful way.
The first concerns the situation facing artists, something the Standing Committee on Finance has talked a lot about in the past few days, further to its examination of Bill C‑2. We, as the heritage committee, can do something, and that is studying a piece of federal legislation, the Status of the Artist Act. Quebec has a statute with some very helpful provisions.
The motion reads as follows:
That, pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the Committee undertake a study on the Status of the Artist Act and its impact on improving basic working conditions for artists; that the Committee invite officials from the heritage department, tax experts and other stakeholders and groups from the culture sector to follow up on this issue and that the Committee hold a minimum of four (4) meetings to that end; and that the Committee report its findings and recommendations to the House.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Hedy Fry
Thank you very much.
There is a motion on the floor by Monsieur Champoux. Does anyone want to comment?
Mr. Louis.
Liberal
Tim Louis Liberal Kitchener—Conestoga, ON
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I have a point of clarification. I thought that the translation came up as a minimum of four meetings and then written down was a matter of a minimum of two meetings.
I just want clarification.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Hedy Fry
I'm sorry. My thing has gone off again. I can't hear a word. I'm sorry. I'm just hearing you from the end of the room.
Can you repeat what you just said, Tim?
Liberal
Tim Louis Liberal Kitchener—Conestoga, ON
I read from the wrong side of the page. I apologize. I'm okay. Thank you.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Hedy Fry
Are you good? Okay. Thanks.
Are there any comments or clarification?
Mr. Housefather.
Liberal
Anthony Housefather Liberal Mount Royal, QC
I'm usually in favour of what the honourable member Mr. Champoux proposes, but I think this motion needs some additions in the way of the sports and heritage sectors, which are outside the culture sector.
Perhaps we could all submit our motions by a certain date to have the subcommittee look at them.
I completely agree with making these issues the focus of our first study.
If Mr. Champoux and the rest of the committee are in agreement, we could all submit our related motions for the subcommittee to review and make recommendations at its first meeting in January.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Hedy Fry
Thank you, Mr. Housefather.
Excuse me, Monsieur Champoux.
We'll go to Mr. Nater first.
Conservative
John Nater Conservative Perth—Wellington, ON
Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you, Mr. Housefather, for that suggestion.
I think that would be an approach that the official opposition would agree to. I know we have a number of studies that we would be interested in undertaking and, frankly, it actually dovetails somewhat nicely with some suggestions from Mr. Champoux. We would be willing to work on that, but there, obviously, are certain things we would like to see included as well.
I think the suggestion of submitting all of our suggestions by a certain date and having either the subcommittee or the full committee—frankly, if doesn't matter to me one way or the other—do that review with committee business at some point at a future meeting....
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Hedy Fry
Thank you, Mr. Nater.
We have a motion on the floor from Mr. Champoux.
If Mr. Champoux would like to withdraw it, we could then entertain another motion like Mr. Nater's. I notice everybody is nodding their heads around the room.
Am I getting a consensus?
Bloc
Martin Champoux Bloc Drummond, QC
I completely appreciate what the two honourable members said; their reasoning is entirely valid and relevant. We've got a highly critical situation on our hands. Last year, the committee studied the pandemic's impact on the culture industry, and the situation is still dire today. There has been precious little in the way of help. A few programs were introduced, but self-employed cultural workers were pretty much left to fend for themselves. With the end of the Canada recovery benefit in October, they have no financial support. They have had no help since October 23, and many of them are going to have to rely on food banks to get through the holidays.
This is about making sure self-employed workers and artists in the culture sector don't end up living in poverty whenever society is in the grip of a public health emergency or anything similar to the present situation. These men and women do not qualify for employment insurance. I realize the program does not fall within the heritage committee's scope, but we are talking about people who are struggling, so we are trying to find a solution to the problem they keep coming up against.
I am entirely open to extending the model we arrive at to workers in the sports sector and other sectors that fall within the committee's purview, but I think the committee needs to prioritize this study.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Hedy Fry
Thank you, Mr. Champoux.
What I'm hearing though is that everyone would prefer for this to follow the procedure set out by sending it to the subcommittee on procedure. Everyone is agreeing with the substance of your motion, but they want to amend it. They want to improve it, and they want to increase it. However, there are other motions out there that haven't been considered by this group.
Everyone seemed to be nodding when the suggestion was made not to remove your motion but to send all the motions to the subcommittee, so that it can consider them. We can then deal with motions from the subcommittee.
Does that sound like an answer to the bit of a problem here?
Mr. Champoux.
Bloc
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Hedy Fry
Does everyone agree to move the motions to the subcommittee?
Thank you.
Mr. Champoux, did you want to say something?
Bloc
Martin Champoux Bloc Drummond, QC
I imagine the conclusion will be the same in relation to my second motion.
Are we moving all of our motions here so they can then be dealt with by the subcommittee, as you suggested?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Hedy Fry
The next step is to set a date and a time for those motions to be considered by the subcommittee and sent back to the main committee. I don't even know if we have the subcommittee composed yet. I don't know who is going to be named from the different parties to the subcommittee. Obviously, you are, Mr. Champoux.
The bottom line is that we need to send everybody's motions and set a date. All motions should be sent by a certain date to the clerk for consideration by the subcommittee.
Can we do that? Would somebody like to move that?
We have to get a date, not December 25, please. Are there any suggestions? We need that to move forward.
Mr. Champoux.