Canadian Heritage Committee on Nov. 20th, 2024

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Kevin Waugh]

Good afternoon, everyone.

I call this meeting to order.

Welcome, everyone, to meeting number 139 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage.

Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format.

I would like to remind the participants of the following points as we get set. Before speaking, please wait until I recognize you by name. For members participating in person, raise your hand if you wish to speak. The clerk and I will do our best to maintain the speaking order, as always. All comments should be addressed through the chair. All witnesses have completed the requirement on the connection.

We did have a connection problem here this afternoon with the Arab Canadian Lawyers Association. We have omitted them. The sound was not good enough today for the meeting.

Our witnesses in front of us today are Stéphane Sérafin, assistant professor, the University of Ottawa, and, from MediaSmarts, Kathryn Hill, executive director, and Matthew Johnson, director of education.

What it means is that the Arab Canadian Lawyers Association will, in fact, be asked to come at a later date, probably in early December.

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2) and the motion adopted by the committee on Wednesday, September 18, 2024, the committee shall resume its study on the protection of freedom of expression.

We'll get to the guests in a moment.

Mr. Champoux, you would like to bring up a topic here that needs to be brought up.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I apologize to the witnesses, but before we hear their testimony, I think we should take a few minutes to look at the committee's schedule.

I have concerns because, the way things are going, I think we won't have enough time to meet our commitments and do the things we agreed on. I am especially concerned that we won't have enough time to complete the current study on freedom of expression since we have also received an order from the House regarding the “defunding” of the CBC.

So I would like us to take a few minutes to discuss that and decide on the topics for next week's meetings. I understand that we will be discussing the CBC/Radio‑Canada with Ms. Tait and Ms. Bouchard next week. The following week, we will not have much time left and we will have to have a number of meetings on the two studies. I think we should discuss this now because it is difficult to contact the witnesses for our study. In addition, we had to turn away a witness today for technical reasons. That will all probably cause a bottleneck at some point.

I want to make sure we can set aside the necessary time in the schedule for the study on freedom of expression and that we can also deliver the report on the CBC/Radio‑Canada on time, as instructed by the House.

The schedule for next week has already been decided in accordance with the availability of Ms. Tait and Ms. Bouchard, but for the following week, I think we could have two meetings of three hours each, on Monday and Wednesday. The clerk could clarify that. If so, we definitely have to devote at least one of those three-hour meetings, either on Monday or Wednesday, to the freedom of expression study. It is essential that we also make progress on that study, or else we will not be able to fulfill our commitment.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Kevin Waugh]

Thank you, Mr. Champoux.

Going forward, committee, next Monday, from 11 a.m. to 1 p.m., we will have here the CEO of CBC, Catherine Tait, as expected, for the full two hours. Then, on Wednesday 27, as expected—and this is the only date she can come—we have the new incoming CEO of CBC, Marie-Philippe Bouchard. She will be here for the full two hours next week, so on Monday we will have Catherine Tait and on Wednesday we'll have Marie-Philippe Bouchard.

What Mr. Champoux has talked about is the week after, in December. The House, as you know, has requested that we bring forward the CBC. On Monday, December 2, we have three hours set aside here for the expert witnesses dealing with the CBC.

Then on Wednesday, December 4, we have a three-hour meeting scheduled. We would do a number of things. We can give the drafting instructions and recommendations very quickly and then go to the protection of freedom and expression.

We are going to need a short report on the CBC. There is wishful thinking that on December 4, we would spend about 15 minutes, prior to the freedom of expression discussion, to give drafting instructions and recommendations on that day.

Then, the following week, on Monday December 9, we need to do the consideration and adoption of the CBC report for it to go forward that week to the House of Commons, as was instructed earlier.

Mr. Champoux.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

I am not especially pleased by what I have just heard, Mr. Chair. I have shown a lot of good will this fall. We have repeatedly delayed the study to make room for all kinds of other things. We will get to the end of the parliamentary session without having had the time to complete the freedom of expression study, including the reports, despite the commitments and compromises made in that regard by each of the parties here. So that does not leave me in a very good mood for our future discussions together.

Last week, we discussed a possible schedule with the Conservatives, by adding a meeting on Monday afternoon, but nothing was decided. And yet it was a completely fair and suitable suggestion that would have easily allowed us to complete the two studies in the time remaining. No one has said anything about it though.

So not only is this surprising, but we are also uncertain about the content of the upcoming meetings.

I understand that the analysts' work is very important, and we want to give the analysts what they need to do their job properly. On the other hand, if the suggested schedule were accepted, we and the analysts would perhaps have enough time to do the work without time pressures and without jeopardizing our commitment to completing the freedom of expression study within the agreed upon timelines.

I will leave that with you, Mr. Chair, because there are witnesses with us and we want to start working on the study today. That said, we should perhaps also start discussing the suggestion made, namely, to add a meeting on Monday afternoon in addition to the one on Monday morning, which would allow us to move forward more quickly on both fronts.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Kevin Waugh]

The other option too, Mr. Champoux, is that on Wednesday 11 we have extended hours.

Mr. Noormohamed.

[Taleeb Noormohamed, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

Mr. Chair, we agree with Mr. Champoux that the work has to be completed as soon as possible.

We have a question for the analysts though. Are three days enough time to write the report and have it translated, or is that too quick?

[Marion Ménard, Analyst]

It's a real challenge.

[Taleeb Noormohamed, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

Okay. That's something we have to consider.

[Marion Ménard]

That will be a short report, between 500 and 750 words.

[Taleeb Noormohamed, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

We don't want to shortchange the quality of the report unless we think that is sufficient. I guess, then, the question becomes how we manage the time such that they have the time to do it justice. A six-meeting study and a 500-word report doesn't seem like it's....

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Kevin Waugh]

We'll just go to Mr. Kurek and then Mr. Champoux again, if you don't mind.

Mr. Kurek, go ahead, please.

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Thanks, Chair.

Certainly, we just need to ensure that we try to coordinate as many pieces together.... Today I would have been happy to have three hours and two witness blocks.

Just as a note to try to work together, and for the benefit of the analysts, I'd be happy to explore the deadlines for dissenting reports. If there were any feedback needed, we could have all of that stuff figured out beforehand to make sure that we can, in fact, work within the tight timelines. I think that having a short report to ensure that we have what is required by the House order—trusting the analysts to make sure they encompass what that looks like, and then just trying to coordinate those different things happening all at once—would certainly be possible, but I think that extended time is entirely reasonable.

It would sure be nice to have a little more notice than the notice going out at 7:51 the night before, in terms of demands on the clerk, analysts and staff. I think that if we can forecast some of those things a bit ahead of time—we have a great panel today, which I'm looking forward to getting to shortly—just to ensure that we get the high-calibre witnesses that I know both of these studies demand, it would be important to have a little more lead time and planning for that.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Kevin Waugh]

Thank you, Mr. Kurek.

Mr. Champoux.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

I will finish quickly because I don't want to draw this out any longer than necessary.

What Mr. Noormohamed said earlier is entirely true. We have known that for weeks though, and the suggestion that was made would have allowed us to meet for several more hours, starting this week. We could have met for two additional hours on Monday since the resources were available.

It is unfortunate that we now have our backs to the wall and are left wondering how we can do our work quickly enough so the analysts can do their job properly. The fact remains that if we had acted on the suggestion made last week we could already be making progress on both fronts simultaneously this week. I think we missed out on that.

We might still be able to catch up though. There is still next Monday when we could meet in the afternoon, in addition to the three-hour meeting in the morning.

We have to give ourselves the opportunity to do our work properly, Mr. Chair. That's what I'm saying.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Kevin Waugh]

Thank you, Mr. Champoux.

I talked to the clerk this week. She had real difficulty, for whatever the reason, getting all parties' people in front of us. Some were committed last Friday, and then, all of sudden, on Monday they dropped out. We had one drop out today for technical reasons. The clerk has tried.

Is it the wish that we have an additional three-hour meeting on Monday, then?

First of all, is it possible? I'll ask the clerk that. I'll shut the mic off, because you may not want to hear the answer.

The clerk is willing to see whether there are additional resources for Monday, which will be November 25. Is it the will of the committee that we not only have Catherine Tait here for two hours but have up to an additional three hours about freedom of expression on Monday, if there are resources and if the clerk can get enough witnesses to come back for this? I'm open to suggestions here.

How about the Liberals?

How about the NDP, Matthew? Welcome, Matthew.

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Mr. Chair, I'm always reluctant to support assigning more work to my colleague, but I understand that she would be okay with that.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Kevin Waugh]

Good.

Mr. Noormohamed, we've come to a consensus on this side. How about over there? If the clerk can find resources and get, maybe, two to three additional hours for a committee meeting, are you in favour of that?

[Taleeb Noormohamed, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

I would have no problem with that. I think we need to do the math on whether or not it gives us enough time for Mr. Champoux's study. We're fine with it—if it works, great—but let's just work backwards to make sure we have met the requirements for all of these pieces. In principle, we have no issue with the three-hour meeting on Monday.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Kevin Waugh]

On Monday we have Ms. Tait for two hours, from 11:00 to 1:00. If we can get extra resources, we could go up to three hours as long as we get enough people forward.... No.

Go ahead, Mr. Champoux.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Chair, if we want to do things properly, we need to hold two completely separate meetings. I have trouble imagining two hours with Ms. Tait, and then reconfiguring the room to welcome other witnesses for an hour for another study. I don't think that would work.

We should add a meeting in the afternoon, after oral questions. It could be for two or three hours, depending on what resources are available.

[Taleeb Noormohamed, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

It would be two hours in the morning and two hours in the afternoon. That's fine.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Kevin Waugh]

It's two and two, then. Okay.

Is it fine that we ask Danielle to see if there are resources for an afternoon meeting that may take place from 4:30 to 6:30 or, if we can, even to 7:30?

Matthew.

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Can you provide clarity on who's going when in terms of...?

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Kevin Waugh]

Yes.

On Monday 25, we will have Catherine Tait here from 11 to one. Then, in the afternoon, depending on resources after QP, we probably could go from 4:30 to 6:30 or 4:30 to 7:30, depending on freedom of expression, if in fact Danielle can get the resources and if we can get our lists in to her so that we can get people in front of us. That has been an issue.

Are we all good?

[Some hon. members]

Yes.