Canadian Heritage Committee on June 6th, 2022

[The Clerk]

Thank you for the clarification. So it's “on the online streaming Act after the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage completes a study” or “its study”?

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

“A study” or “its study”—I leave it with you. It's whatever you believe is best, “on the alleged involvement of Hockey Canada”.

[The Clerk]

Thank you.

Oh, that was “Hockey”. Thank you. I have appalling handwriting. It's “the alleged involvement of Hockey Canada in sexual assaults committed in 2018; that the committee invite the Minister of Sport to appear for no less than one hour; and that the committee invite representatives of Hockey Canada to appear for no less than two hours”.

Is that the correct text of the amendment?

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

That is correct, yes. Thank you.

[The Clerk]

Thank you very much for your patience.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

On a point of order, Mr. Chair, I would seek from you a ruling as to whether or not that amendment is receivable, given that it changes a certain date to an uncertain date.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, John Nater]

Thank you, Mr. Housefather.

I will momentarily suspend and seek the advice of the table and I will return with a ruling.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, John Nater]

Colleagues, we will resume this meeting. There is obviously some grey area on this. I will rule the amendment permissible. We will continue with the debate on the amendment.

Ms. Thomas has the floor.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Thank you, Chair.

I was in the middle of explaining why the amendment to the motion is important. It does ask us to push the pause button on Bill C-11 and complete a study with regards to Hockey Canada and the alleged involvement in sexual assaults that were committed in 2018. The reason that is important is that it is in accordance with a motion that was passed in the House of Commons with unanimous consent on Thursday, June 2, 2022. That motion reads as follows, and, by unanimous consent, it was resolved:

That the House call Hockey Canada before the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage to shed light on its involvement in a case of alleged sexual assaults committed in 2018.

Given that motion was passed then and that we are the committee responsible for acting on that motion, it seems incumbent upon us to do so. Again, I would highlight that it was passed unanimously, which means that all parties voted yes to it—not just all parties, but all members voted yes to it. It is a very important matter. It is a very time-sensitive matter.

In addition to that, I guess I would draw attention to the Minister of Sport and the words that she spoke in a media interview that was released on June 3. In the direct quote here in the article she said, “I am shocked and angry to read about the allegations made against the players of the Canadian junior hockey team.... All Canadians want to know and me too, is whether any public funds were used to cover up this story of gang rape”, and she added that an audit of federal funding was on the way.

Obviously the Minister of Sport has recognized that it's important to know whether or not public funds were, in fact, used to help cover up this occurrence. Then she went on to commit that there would be an audit of federal funding.

This committee has the responsibility of figuring out whether or not those public funds were used, and also to see whether or not that audit has started. If not, why not? If so, are there any findings from it?

We certainly have some good questions on that. Like I said, it is this committee's responsibility to take on this study. I would propose that we do that before continuing to proceed to clause-by-clause with Bill C-11.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, John Nater]

Thank you, Ms. Thomas.

We do have a speaking list on the amendment. I have Mr. Julian, Mr. Uppal, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Waugh.

Mr. Julian, on the amendment, the floor is yours.

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

Thank you.

I don't have the exact wording of the amendment, but I want to offer a subamendment. It would change the word “after” to “before”. What I'm attempting to accomplish is that the original intent of starting on Wednesday, June 8, is something that we, having heard from the witnesses, would want to proceed on. Subsequent to that, we could move immediately to the very important study that Ms. Thomas suggests.

I don't have the wording of the amendment.

Mr. Chair, does “before” as opposed to “after” accomplish that end?

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, John Nater]

Thank you, Mr. Julian. We will accept it as permissible.

For the benefit of the committee, if it's permissible, I'll have our clerk read out what the new wording would say with the amendments.

[The Clerk]

The subamendment to Ms. Thomas's amendment to Mr. Bittle's motion would read:

That the committee commence its clause-by-clause study on the Online Streaming Act before the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage completes a study on the alleged involvement of Hockey Canada in sexual assaults committed in 2018; that the committee invite the Minister of Sport to appear for no less than one hour; and that the committee invite representatives of Hockey Canada for no less than two hours.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, John Nater]

Thank you, Madam Clerk.

Mr. Julian, do you want to speak to the subamendment?

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

Yes. I'll speak to it briefly, because I think we want to proceed to a vote. We have witnesses here, and I am eager to ask them questions. We've had lots of filibusters, which is really unfortunate, because that has often meant that witnesses have been delayed and we haven't been able to get answers to important questions. That being said, I think the more rapidly we proceed to clause-by-clause, which I imagine will take a lot of time.... We're offering a number of amendments; I know the other parties are as well. We submitted our amendments, Mr. Chair, last week. I think the Bloc Québécois and the Liberal Party also did. The Conservatives seemed reluctant to provide amendments, but as you know, Mr. Chair, amendments can be presented during clause-by-clause study, so they are certainly entitled to do that.

The point is this: We've been hearing from witnesses despite the filibusters. We've had a vast majority of witnesses saying that they support the legislation, but improvements need to be made, and it really is our responsibility as a committee to make those improvements, to put forward those amendments that we now have the opportunity to go through. The sooner we tackle the clause-by-clause and the improvements, the sooner we can get to the study that Ms. Thomas suggests, which, I don't deny, is important as well.

I guess what I'm suggesting, Mr. Chair, is if there is a real, genuine interest in proceeding to the other study the best way to do that is to proceed to clause-by-clause, complete the mandated responsibility that we were given by the House of Commons to examine this legislation, provide improvements, and then return it to the House of Commons. The sooner we do that, the sooner we can start the study that Ms. Thomas has mentioned.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, John Nater]

Thank you, Mr. Julian.

I do have a list going for the subamendment. If I'm accurate, I have Mr. Julian, who just finished, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Perkins, Mr. Uppal and Monsieur Champoux. Does that sound accurate? No?

[An hon. member]

[Inaudible—Editor].

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, John Nater]

Okay. That's on the original motion. We'll add you to the list for the subamendment.

Ms. Thomas, the floor is yours, on the subamendment.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Thank you.

I'm a little bit surprised that this subamendment has been brought forward, because essentially it says that we're going to move forward with Bill C-11 first, and then, eventually, we will get to this motion that was unanimously passed in the House of Commons to look at Hockey Canada; but there is no time frame. If this committee spends the next few weeks looking at C-11, and then the parliamentary secretary makes the decision that actually we're not going to move...we're not going to have this committee anymore, and it just breaks for the summer, and then—

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

A point of order, Mr. Chair.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, John Nater]

Mr. Bittle, on a point of order.

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

I have a point of clarification.

I would like to know what powers I have to suspend this committee. I didn't know those existed in the Standing Orders. I just found that out right now. I don't recall that in the green book of procedure.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, John Nater]

I don't think that's a point of order, but I appreciate the comments.

Mrs. Thomas, you have the floor.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

The Liberals can make the decision that this committee will longer meet, which puts this motion with regard to Hockey Canada on hold until the fall, and perhaps even beyond. The subamendment brought forward by Mr. Julian to say we're going to do clause-by-clause first.... We'll do that before, and then, after some time in the future—it could be down the road by weeks, months or even longer—we will eventually get to the unanimous consent motion passed in the House of Commons.

I have concerns about that, for a few reasons. One, it's actually disgraceful to the victim who came forward with her story, and it's a disgrace to those members of Parliament—to all of us—who stood in the House of Commons in support of this motion and taking it seriously. Two, it revictimizes this individual. What Mr. Julian is proposing is that her voice isn't worth hearing now. We'll hear it eventually. We'll give it attention eventually. We'll look into this eventually, which I think is very disheartening.

In addition to that, we have heard from the Minister of Sport that she was “shocked and angry”—those are the words she used—to learn about these allegations, and that she wished to get to the bottom of it. One of the ways we can make sure that happens is by acting on the study called for through this unanimous consent motion. Again, the Minister of Sport, who falls under the heritage committee, has said she wants to know whether any public funds were used to cover up this story of gang rape, and she wants an audit of federal funding and how it was used.

We can go with Mr. Julian's motion, and do it eventually—some day down the road—or we can do the right thing, be vigilant, take this victim seriously, and do the study now. We have an opportunity to communicate clearly to Canadians about how we treat victims in this place, how seriously we take their stories, and how genuinely we want to get to the bottom of something. I take the Minister of Sport at her word when she says that she does, in fact, want to know whether public funds were used, and that she does, in fact, want an audit with regard to those funds. The way she can make good on those commitments, indications or well-wishes is by allowing this study to go forward in a timely fashion.

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

I have a point of order.