Canadian Heritage Committee on Dec. 13th, 2021

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Are we ready to discuss this motion?

Mr. Bittle.

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

Thank you so much, Madam Chair.

I was under the impression—and someone could tell me otherwise—that the whips' and House leaders' offices had agreed that there wouldn't be additional amendments to this. It's disappointing that we're starting this off already violating that particular agreement.

Having been on committees—not as many as Mr. Julian—I haven't run into this problem before. Does it create a level of bureaucracy that is unnecessary for the clerks? Having dealt with many clerks throughout my six years here, it seems to have run well in terms of the witnesses that have been provided. The invitations go out and only a certain percentage of them are accepted. I doubt we are going to get into too many issues where we're summoning witnesses to appear before this committee.

I don't understand the necessity of this motion, especially in light of the agreement between the parties before we even arrived here. I think it is an unnecessary item. In my opinion, the clerks have done outstanding work in my six years here. Perhaps Mr. Julian disagrees.

We're also reliant on the schedules of the witnesses. Mr. Julian may want his witness to appear on Monday, and they may not be available until Wednesday. Do we not have the meeting on Monday, so that a partisan list of witnesses is available? I think the issue is, as long as the members are available to present the witnesses and those invitations go out, whether it really matters where in a two-hour segment they appear.

I can't support this motion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Mr. Housefather.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I respect, as always, Mr. Julian's proposal.

I think there's a question of proportionality. Historically, committees have had witnesses somewhat in proportion to the percentage of members they have in the House of Commons and on committees. This would say that each party is entitled to exactly the same number of witnesses for every study and everything that we do, regardless of how many members on the committee and members in the House of Commons that party has. I don't agree with that. I would be prepared to think about it in specific contexts perhaps, but not in terms of the general rule for the committee. I don't think that's a fair rule.

I'm sorry. As the larger party, I don't agree with that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Go ahead, Mr. Champoux.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

I quite like what the honourable member Mr. Housefather just said. In other words, it may be possible to adopt the practice every now and again, but applying it as a general rule would be problematic, especially on this committee.

Mr. Julian said that the health committee had adopted a similar motion. Perhaps it works well for a committee like the Standing Committee on Health, but the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage sometimes deals with issues that have a much greater impact on Quebec or the French-speaking community. Members from Quebec, especially those from the Bloc Québécois, could have a greater interest in certain issues. As Mr. Bittle pointed out, a rule whereby each party invites one witness per two-hour witness panel could create an imbalance in regard to certain issues.

I have concerns, especially if we have to vote on this today. For that reason, I cannot support this motion now. I am not opposed to the idea of discussing it later or on a case-by-case basis, but at this time, I don't think this motion is well-suited to the heritage committee's needs.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Thank you.

Mr. Julian.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I want to say that everyone should care about official languages issues in the country. The member for Drummond can rest assured that the procedure for the selection of witnesses will indeed be sound. The reality is that the selection of witnesses should reflect the minority Parliament we are in.

The Standing Committee on Health adopted a motion to make the selection of witnesses fairer as far as the parties are concerned, and other committees will be adopting it as well. This practice is essential in a minority Parliament. If we don't adopt this motion, the government is going to select half of all the witnesses we invite, as is customary. That can be a drawback given the diverse range of witnesses we would like to hear from.

It is something that other committees are adopting, for one. It's something that Michelle Rempel Garner proposed in the health committee, and it has worked extremely well. We are in a minority Parliament. In a minority Parliament all of us have to work together. The idea that half the witnesses go to government and the other half goes to the opposition doesn't make as much sense in a minority Parliament. That's why a number of committees are now adopting this approach.

I have no intention of doing a filibuster, but I did want to respond to some of my colleagues' comments.

If there are no further speakers, of course, Madam Chair, you could proceed to the vote.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

I think we have a further speaker.

Go ahead, Mr. Nater.

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I'll be brief. From the official opposition's standpoint we're comfortable using the “trust but verify” approach. We'll give it some time and see how the first study goes. If the witnesses come disproportionately from one party, then we can revisit it at that point. I think that, for the time being, we'll work with it as it is. Hopefully, this committee can work on a strong consensus basis. We can all invite the witnesses our party wishes to hear. I don't see a problem. We can go forward without this motion.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Thank you, Mr. Nater. I think we did pass something about consensus earlier on in the routine motions.

Are there any further comments, or any further discussion?

Mr. Julian's motion reads, “That each party represented on the committee be entitled to select one witness per two-hour witness panel.”

Did you want the names read for a recorded division?

All right, let's do a division.

(Motion negatived: nays 10; yeas 1)

I think we are almost unanimous in opposition. I would say that the motion fails.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Yes, it has indeed, Madam Chair. As you said, it was almost unanimous.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

I think some people have said that they would want to look at it again.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

It was defeated by an overwhelming margin, I think we would agree.

The other routine motion that I wanted to present I've also distributed to committee members. What that does is define, in a minority Parliament, the definition around when a committee can meet in camera, so it's something that can be more circumscribed.

It would read as follows:

That the committee may meet in camera only for the following purposes:

(a) to consider a draft report;

(b) to attend briefings concerning national security;

(c) to consider lists of witnesses;

(d) for any other reason, with the unanimous consent of the committee.

That all votes taken in camera, with the exception of votes regarding the consideration of draft reports, be recorded in the Minutes of Proceedings, including how each member voted when recorded votes are requested.

The intention of this routine motion, Madam Chair, is simply to reduce the amount of time that's often taken, in a minority Parliament, to discuss when the committee should go in camera, by having this limited list. What it does is it saves time for the committee. It means that, essentially, we would be going in camera only for those reasons. Of course, that doesn't preclude at all the unanimous consent of the committee to do so.

I so move.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Is there any discussion, debate, comment...?

Mr. Bittle.

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

Thank you so much, Madam Chair.

Again, the concern is that this is something that was already discussed in terms of the routine motions that the parties would agree to, but.... I have seen this motion in other committees before, and especially in a minority Parliament, I don't see the benefit. It's not like the government and the government members can force everything in camera. I think there's an agreement on all sides that it be used sparingly, but I've seen other instances where, again, in my limited experience....

Mr. Julian has been here a while longer, but I've been in camera with PROC, and I believe Mr. Nater was on the committee as well, where we discussed collective agreements. Could one member of one party simply say, “No, we're not going into an in camera session because there's a discussion of that”? On the same committee, we went in camera to meet with a police officer to protect his identity, as he or she was discussing issues regarding hate crimes. It wasn't an issue of national security, but it was an issue of personal security. Why would we allow one member the ability to prevent that witness from speaking?

Again, the government can't impose its will that everything be in camera and hide things that are unnecessary, but in carving it out and being so specific, we're giving opportunities...including for the government. If the opposition wants to hear from a particular witness on an issue of security or something, where they need to have their identity protected, one government member could say, “No, it needs to be out in the open.”

I think we're setting up for failure and potentially preventing witnesses from being heard who should be heard in camera.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Mr. Housefather.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Basically, to me, the core issue is what the motion would do. It would take away the right of the majority of the committee to ever vote to be in camera and subject that to the whim of one person on the committee at any time. I don't agree with that.

I think in camera meetings should be used sparingly. They should be used in limited contexts. I think we should try to agree on when we should be in camera and when not. If we run into a problem with that, we can try to arrange some type of resolution to that by coming to a general agreement.

The end result is that I don't agree with the principle of taking away the majority's right and imposing a unanimous requirement, except in context. I haven't had an opportunity to consider these three particular contexts, because I just got the motion, but I don't agree with the motion, at least right now.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Is there any further discussion?

I would like to point out that Standing Order 67, specifically 67(2), considers a motion to go in public or in camera to be non-debatable and non-amendable.

House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, outlines this on page 1089:

Any member may move a motion to go from sitting in public to sitting in camera (and vice versa). The motion is decided immediately without debate or amendment.

Obviously, this is a practice that is.... Mr. Julian's motion would actually cancel that right.

Page 1089 also states:

In practice, committees often change from [in public to in camera] at the suggestion of the Chair, with the implied consent of the members.

I would suggest that the process outlined by Mr. Julian could be used more as a guide by the chair and the committee on how to proceed rather than as a rule. As members know, committees may adopt procedural rules to govern their proceedings, but only to the extent that they respect the higher authorities, particularly the Standing Orders. I just read to you from the Standing Orders.

I would rule this motion out of order, so to speak, because of those decisions, because it goes against the Standing Orders.

Peter, what would you like to do? Would you like to withdraw it, or would you like to take a vote?

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Madam Chair, it is perfectly in order. I'd like to hear from my colleagues on the Conservative and Bloc side, of course.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Absolutely.

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

Madam Chair, just to clarify, have you ruled this out of order, or is it still on the table?

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

I just ruled it out of order, but Mr. Julian wanted to.... I'm always guided by the committee's will. If I get nobody objecting, I will continue to let this—

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Madam Chair, I'm so sorry to intervene, but shouldn't the process then be, since you have ruled it out of order, that Mr. Julian should move to overrule your ruling, and then there should be a vote on that?

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

I have a point of order, Madam Chair.

I think as a collegial approach, hearing from my colleagues on the Conservative and Bloc side would be helpful to all of us and instructive to all of us. I think if their feeling is similar to that of my colleagues on the Liberal side, that is a different road for me to take than if they are supportive of the motion.