Canadian Heritage Committee on Dec. 13th, 2022

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Does that include expanding it to six meetings?

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

This includes the entire subamendment, absolutely.

Just because we're asking for two meetings doesn't mean we're obliged to limit ourselves to those two meetings afterwards. We are asking for two meetings to study what is in the sport policy that Ms. St-Onge will table in February.

We cannot wait until April to receive Ms. St‑Onge, since she will have tabled her policy. We want her to testify before her policy is tabled, so that we can improve it with the testimony and expert advice we will have received beforehand.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Thank you, Martin.

Go ahead, Marilyn.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

Certainly I think there are probably more meetings needed, but I agree with Monsieur Champoux that there's a policy about to come out, as you heard from my list.

It's not rocket science. The government has a responsibility to make sure the organizations we're funding have HR policies that comply with the law. They educate on what's unacceptable behaviour. They set out the timely follow-up required. They set out sanctions for those who offend, and there's a description of how Sports Canada will oversee that through audit or other measures.

I support the extra meetings, but I don't support the removal of the first part that says that the objective of the committee is to ensure that the directions and actions to be taken by Sports Canada under the Canadian sport policy renewal will result in a significant shift in the culture and mindset of sport. That is what we're trying to accomplish.

I do agree that there's more discussion to be had about who we should hear from, but this policy that the minister is going to roll out is certainly not going to be created on February 1. It's probably already in draft, and she can certainly speak to it. That will give us an idea of whether there are gaps or areas on which we would want to call more witnesses.

Then, as far as the rest goes, these are standard arguments that you make on reporting back to the clerk and making sure the recommendations make it to the House.

I will also not be supporting the subamendment by Mr. Bittle.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Chris, are you ready to speak again?

I would like us to get this done before we rise, before one o'clock.

Go ahead, Chris.

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

Thank you so much, Madam Chair.

It really is disappointing, because, again, we've said as a committee that we want to protect kids and that we want to hear from other groups. We want to hear from other sports organizations. Why don't we say right now before we break for six weeks that we're going to do that work as opposed to showing the survivors and victims that we'd like a few partisan jabs first and we'll get to you in the new year, maybe, possibly, hopefully?

Here's an opportunity to expand the study. I agree that the minister should come and report back to the committee, and I think that's a reasonable request by the opposition. That's why I've included it or made sure that it stays within the subamendment, but the committee doesn't control the minister's schedule. What if she's not available?

If we pass this motion today, history probably tells us that we won't be here on Friday, although I have no inside information on that subject. As Mr. Shields said, then we just cancel the meetings, and we don't have time to call any witnesses. We'll just come here and twiddle our thumbs, start from scratch and say that we need to call these witnesses, when we can do the work right now and we can show victims groups, survivors, that we care and that we want to look into this and do some work on it.

The minister still needs to be accountable. That's the role of Parliament, to ensure that the executive is held to account, but I don't understand the rationale of refusing at this point to expand the study so that we can have recommendations, because, based on this, we have two meetings and then are required to report back. Report back on what? That we didn't like it...? Then it just becomes a review of the minister's testimony. We still don't have any expert opinions. We still haven't heard from any victims, survivors or other organizations out there, and we're just going to report. Report back what?

I take the other members at their words that they will want to expand the study. Why don't we do that now and get the work done so that, over this period of time, we can submit a list of witnesses so that the clerk has time? We put a lot of pressure on her and she does incredible work, but if we show up—I think there's unanimous consent on that point—and if the minister reports back that she can't attend these two days, the clerk just can't go calling witnesses without a witness list.

We'll show up on January 31. We will then start this all over again to try to figure out the schedule, and we may or may not be able to have witnesses appear on the Friday, so we'll have burned two meetings when we could be talking to people who wish to express a concern to Parliament, who I'm sure have been calling everyone's offices to say that they want to appear before Parliament and do a study that looks at and protects kids.

Even if it's on hockey, we have touched just the tip of the iceberg on this issue of sport. We need to do better. I'm hoping that the members can agree that this is the opportunity, given the schedule, given that we probably won't have a Friday meeting to get this done and set it out, rather than do it piecemeal, rather than the minister's office saying that they don't have time, that they may be able to do it another week and that they may not be able to do it this week when we return back from the break. Then we will have burned a couple of meetings.

There's a Status of the Artist Act study I guess we can probably dig into. I don't know what other business is before the committee that we can use at that point, but we'll have already burned two more meetings. Why don't we take this opportunity and show those who are out there that we care enough to plan into the new year to hear from these organizations and people who have faced a horrific power imbalance?

Again, it's not just sexual misconduct. There is harassment. There is systemic racism. There are issues with seemingly every sports organization that we look at because there seems to be a monopoly. These organizations have monopolies over the sports. We love sport, and few people question anything that goes on. Many of these organizations have never really been looked at, and I think it's really a good opportunity to have a plan. This is an incomplete plan.

I see Mr. Julian with his hand up. I would really like to hear what he has to say.

As a suggestion, perhaps we can suspend.... We can hear from the other members, but hopefully, we can suspend for a few minutes to actually come up with something substantive.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Before we go any further, I have three names down. We are going around in circles. We are not coming to any conclusions. I just want to tell the committee that I think we should come to a conclusion of some kind.

I don't see both ideas as being.... They are interrelated, really. I think Mr. Bittle made a point. I just want to point out to the committee that we could ask the minister to come, and the minister may not be able to come, so then we're stuck.

I think we need to come to a conclusion soon. I'm going to have to stop people if they keep making the same points over and over again. Let's come to a conclusion here.

Go ahead, Marilyn.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

First of all, I want to say that for Mr. Bittle to cast aspersions that other members of the committee don't care about helping children, that is not only not true but also unhelpful.

Second, this motion—

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

I have a point of order, Madam Chair.

That's not what I said at all. I specifically said that I think the intention of the committee is to look after children but that this motion doesn't do that and that we should just get to work on that.

I specifically said that it is the intention of all the members to do that, but that we need to put our money where our mouths are.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Thank you, Mr. Bittle.

Go ahead, Ms. Gladu.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Apology accepted. Thank you.

This motion also invites the Minister of Sport and doesn't give her specific dates. We said January or February in this motion. It's the Minister of Sport. With a number of scandalous things going on in all kinds of sports, do you think she would be too busy to come in January or February? I would suggest that she's writing a policy on this. This is a priority, and she would definitely be able to come.

You will see that in this motion there is no end date for when the committee report has to be submitted. We have said that we are willing to add meetings, but we have to be clear on what we will do in those meetings.

We know what we want to do with the minister. We want to hear about what she's proposing in order to address the things that are going on. I think that is where we can start, and then the committee can always add on.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

We have 15 minutes left. I really would like to see us come to some kind of decision before we leave. I don't know if we're going to have a meeting on Friday or not, so it would be nice to come to some kind of decision.

If everybody wants to make a new point, that's great, but I really feel that we're going around in circles, repeating the same things over and over again.

Go ahead, Martin.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

I won't repeat what Ms. Gladu said, but that's pretty much what I wanted to say.

The Minister of Sport is working on the most important file of her mandate so far. If this file is not important enough for her to make room in her agenda, I think priorities need to be reframed.

If you wish, Madam Chair, there is the amendment to be voted on, followed by the motion.

As far as I am concerned, I have nothing else to add.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Thank you, Martin.

We have Peter and Chris again.

I really want us to come to a conclusion here. I'm going to have to call the vote very soon.

[A hon. member]

I appreciate that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Go ahead, Peter.

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

Thanks, Madam Chair.

I don't actually understand the filibuster. I have a lot of respect for Mr. Bittle. He's somebody who contributes a lot to this committee and brings a lot of wisdom and expertise, but in this particular context, I don't understand delaying the vote. I too am reluctant about the subamendment and the six meetings. I'd like to go beyond that. I think that is a discussion we need to have amongst all the parties.

Again, regarding the principal motion that Mr. Champoux has moved forward, it makes sense to bring the minister and the officials back. We need to touch base with them in any event. I think it is wise for us to do that as part of the broader study.

On reporting it to the House, that isn't, as I see it, a comprehensive report. I see that as something that allows the House to take knowledge of what the committee is doing. There is a lot of interest in the work we are doing, not only from the public but also from other parliamentarians and even other committees. I think touching base makes sense. I think that is our responsibility.

Of course, Mr. Bittle is the master of his own destiny, but if could, I would suggest that if he withdrew the subamendment, we could vote on the principal amendment. I do think that would give us time to go in camera for 15 minutes or so, start the discussions around the broader study and the work that we need to do in February, March and April, potentially, of next year, as well as touch on the private members' legislation that we have received as a committee.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Thank you, Peter. That was the intent, but I don't know when we're going to get there.

Go ahead, Mr. Bittle. Please be succinct.

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

It's seldom what I am, Madam Chair, but I will do my best.

I won't burn out the clock. This isn't a filibuster. I really, truly wish to convey my points. I really don't think we're that far apart. I truly don't understand the reluctance to actually say what the committee's plan is going forward or the reluctance to go in camera and hammer out a business plan or even suspend for five minutes to come up with a genuine plan.

I want to clarify my comments. I truly think the members of this committee wish to help kids. It just doesn't appear in this motion, and that's sad. I hope we get there. Again, if the minister is not here on these two days....

The motion doesn't say January and February. The motion—

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Mr. Shields, I'm sorry. Mr. Bittle has the floor.

Are you raising a point of order? No...?

Thank you.

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

There's one....

I'm sorry. Is there a point of order?

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

It's not a point of order, but it's a clarification.

I don't believe Mr. Bittle understands that the motion was amended to take away those two specific dates that were there and to say January and February. That was accepted as a friendly amendment by Mr. Champoux.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

That's a point of clarification, not a point of order.

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

I have two separate motions here.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

We now have 10 minutes left in this meeting.