Canadian Heritage Committee on April 28th, 2026

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Thank you. I appreciate that. That was going to be my second question.

Do we have confirmation from the minister that he will in fact appear with regard to the study on fairness in the media?

[The Chair, Liberal, Lisa Hepfner]

Yes. We don't have a date, but he has indicated that he will appear in May or June on this study.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Okay. I'll just voice my concern there. This study is coming to a close fairly soon. As a part of the motion, the minister has been requested to come.

The longer we wait, the longer it will take us to close out this study and draft the report. Of course, it would be preferable for the minister to come for sure by the end of May, if at all possible. I realize that those at this table don't control the minister's schedule, but I just want to convey the importance of that.

Thank you.

At this time, I wish to move a motion. It has been sent out to all the members of this committee. The motion reads as follows:

That the committee undertake a study of no less than seven (7) meetings on the distribution, impact, and efficiency of Department of Heritage Funding;

That the committee invite the Minister of Canadian Identity and Culture to testify before the committee in relation to the study for no less than two (2) hours individually; and

That the committee report its findings and recommendations to the House.

I would move this motion for discussion at this point in time.

[The Chair, Liberal, Lisa Hepfner]

Go ahead, Mr. Myles.

[David Myles, Liberal, Fredericton—Oromocto, NB]

To speak to that motion for a moment.... I'm aware of the fact that we have witnesses here.

I'm happy to chat about it. The idea of asking the minister to come for another two hours is.... I mean, he might as well set up a little permanent seat if he's coming for four hours in the next little while. It's a bit ridiculous.

Anyway, I'm happy to discuss this, but I don't think this is the time to discuss it. We have a meeting on Tuesday in which we're talking about committee business. I'd be happy to speak about it then.

I would move to adjourn the debate.

[The Chair, Liberal, Lisa Hepfner]

That is a dilatory motion. We need to vote on it before I take more speakers.

(Motion agreed to: yeas 6; nays 5)

Debate on that motion is adjourned.

You still have time for questions, and you still have the floor, Mrs. Thomas.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

I seek to move another motion that is currently tabled and, therefore, before everyone in this committee. I move:

That the committee undertake a study of no less than six (6) meetings on the effect of construction and expropriations related to the Alto High Speed Rail project and their impact on natural, cultural, and historical sites;

That the committee give priority to this study upon the conclusion of the study agreed to by the committee on Tuesday, January 27, 2026;

That the committee invite the Minister of Canadian Identity and Culture, the Minister of Transport, and the Minister of Environment, Climate Change, and Nature to testify before the committee in relation to the study for no less than two (2) hours each individually; and

That the committee report its findings and recommendations to the House.

Madam Chair, I would add two notes that I think are worth attention. In both of these motions, it has been acknowledged that the study we're currently doing takes precedence in terms of wrapping it up. There's another study that we have a gentleman's agreement to undertake next, which has been put forward by the Liberal Party. I am not asking that the studies in these motions take place this spring. In fact, they probably wouldn't take place until September or October.

As for Mr. Myles' point, the minister wouldn't need to camp out here. It's quite okay. He wouldn't be asked to come until October, so he would have plenty of time to prepare and plenty of opportunity to rest over the summer before we would ask him to appear.

I want to make sure this is clear. I'm not asking that these take precedence over the motions that are currently agreed to for studies, but I am asking that they be considered for study following the ones we currently have agreed to on the agenda.

[The Chair, Liberal, Lisa Hepfner]

Okay. We have notices of these motions. I'm not certain that this last one is relevant to this committee.

I have Mr. Champoux on the speaking list next.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

First, yesterday in the House, we saw the government party's use of its newly acquired majority. It was a denial of democracy to impose in this manner a topic that could have been explored through constructive discussions. This government has boasted of wanting to work constructively and collaboratively with the opposition parties. However, yesterday, we saw the opposite.

Today, our committee has new members as a result of yesterday's vote in the House. The Liberals' first move when we table a motion is to adjourn the debate. Adjourning the debate is also a denial of democracy. It prevents parliamentarians from debating a topic that, in my opinion, is in no way divisive. It falls completely in line with the committee's work. I'm referring to the previous motion tabled by Mrs. Thomas. It would have been perfectly reasonable to discuss this matter. Mrs. Thomas would have had time to explain that we weren't in a hurry and that her motion could have been studied in the fall, for example. There wasn't any time frame set out in the motion. Yet the Liberals' first response was to adjourn the debate on the motion.

If this is what the future holds with the committee's new composition, I'm extremely disappointed. I've been on the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage for seven years. It has been extremely tense. Mrs. Thomas can attest to this. We've been on opposite sides of many issues. However, for quite some time now, we've been working well together. This is helping to move things forward. When it comes to media and culture, we often have extremely different opinions. Yet we always find a way to hear from people who want to share their views with the committee.

It saddens me greatly now to see that the Liberals plan to take this path. They want to control the narrative, control the debate and control the topics. If this is where we're headed, the opposition members won't be alone in their disappointment. The sectors that we advocate for and represent will also be disappointed. We're already starting to hear this. I'm already having conversations with people who wonder whether things will be like this all the time. They aren't necessarily satisfied with all the government's efforts. They want the opposition parties to have their voices heard.

Colleagues, I think that it's fine for you to enjoy your new monarchy in parliamentary committees. However, remember that we serve the public. The conversations proposed by the opposition parties often come from a place of goodwill and relevance. I would hate to see the tone change here.

With regard to the first motion, I completely agreed with Mrs. Thomas.

The motion before us is indeed related to today's topic. The high‑speed rail project will affect the cultural sectors of the regions concerned. I think that it's entirely appropriate to discuss this motion and to consider carrying out a study on the matter. Not only is it timely and relevant, but some people in these sectors are extremely concerned. I'm talking in particular about cultural sector workers, arts presenters and cultural venue owners. They feel threatened. They want us to hear their voices and listen to their concerns.

I would like to ask my colleague, Mr. Myles, to reconsider this strategy of adjourning the debate on motions tabled by the opposition. He should consider the fact that the committee could carry out this study a bit later in the fall, for example, or as soon as we have the opportunity.

I needed to put this on the table and point out that we're used to working together, especially in this committee.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Lisa Hepfner]

Thank you.

Go on, Mr. Myles.

[David Myles, Liberal, Fredericton—Oromocto, NB]

I completely agree. I'm so glad that we're working together. I think that we've done well so far.

I said that we had witnesses here today and that we had a chance to ask them questions. We also have a meeting scheduled for Tuesday to discuss committee business. Hence my comment that it was worth adjourning the debate for now. We can discuss the matter on Tuesday.

I completely agree. I hope that we can continue to work together. As you well know, I also like to work this way.

However, we have witnesses here right now and we're having an important discussion. Hence my proposal to adjourn the debate on this motion. We can continue the debate on Tuesday.

[The Chair, Liberal, Lisa Hepfner]

Okay. Call the vote.

(Motion agreed to: yeas 6; nays 5)

Go ahead, Mrs. Thomas.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Thank you.

Given that Tuesday is a business meeting and that we received notice of this literally less than an hour ago, I'm wondering if the chair would agree to provide us with an agenda for that meeting so that we know what we're stepping into, rather than coming into it blind.

[The Chair, Liberal, Lisa Hepfner]

There is no agenda at this point, but we can provide one before Tuesday. I'll work with the clerk.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

I'm sorry. I always get a little panicked when I hear that a meeting is being called but there's no agenda. Is there a purpose for this meeting?

[The Chair, Liberal, Lisa Hepfner]

I don't have an agenda, but yes. It's about future business. It's an open table about what we will study and what our schedule will look like going forward at this committee.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

As it has been agreed at this table, generally, there's a working group that gets together and makes that decision. It's composed of three members of Parliament, with one from each party. I'm curious why that practice is not being engaged in and, instead, the entire committee is being invited to the table.

[The Chair, Liberal, Lisa Hepfner]

We could do it either way. If the committee would prefer to have just a subcommittee meeting....

Go ahead, Mr. Champoux.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Madam Chair, the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure typically meets to discuss a proposed agenda for future business and then submits the proposal to the rest of the committee. The committee then makes a decision and votes on the proposal. The committee normally and traditionally takes this approach. I think that this is the right way to proceed.

[The Chair, Liberal, Lisa Hepfner]

We've done it both ways. We have started with a subcommittee and we've taken the whole committee together in a business meeting. If members prefer to have just a subcommittee meeting on Tuesday, I'm okay with that.

Are there any other thoughts?

Go ahead, Mr. Al Soud.

[Fares Al Soud, Liberal, Mississauga Centre, ON]

Chair, I'm amenable to either option. I think everyone on this side is as well. If a subcommittee is preferred, that's perfectly fine, but I think it's important that we, as a committee, come together and have open discussions on what we want to discuss as business.

Everyone has put forward motions. Everyone has priorities. Everyone cares about different things. I find that when we have these conversations as a group, together, with everyone at the table, that tone of collaboration is struck completely differently. If a subcommittee meeting's what we'd like, then I'm perfectly comfortable with that. A more open, candid discussion among all members of this committee, together, would probably be more productive and to the benefit of Canadians.

[The Chair, Liberal, Lisa Hepfner]

That's how we made it work before, but I'm open to making it a subcommittee-only meeting. Do we need to revise the membership of the subcommittee group now that we have different membership in the entire committee? It's not as though we're voting.

Go on, Mr. Champoux.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

No. The custom is to have one representative per party. Usually, it's the vice‑chairs of the committee, the chair or a representative of the government party. It isn't proportional. However, as Mr. Al Soud said earlier, the subcommittee's decisions aren't final. The decisions are subsequently discussed in the committee. This just simplifies the discussion. Each party comes with a summary of its organization's expectations, which we discuss in the subcommittee. I think that this is the most efficient approach.

[The Chair, Liberal, Lisa Hepfner]

Go ahead, Mr. Ntumba.

[Bienvenu-Olivier Ntumba, Liberal, Mont-Saint-Bruno—L’Acadie, QC]

Madam Chair, I just want to point out that we have witnesses here. We should have finished asking them our questions in order to at least complete this part of the study. As Mr. Myles said, the committee can look at the motion again next Tuesday. The discussion could also take place in the subcommittee. That way, we can finish asking the witnesses our questions if my colleagues have any left. The responses from the experts here with us could then provide further input into the study.

I'm not sure what you think.