Canadian Heritage Committee on Oct. 8th, 2026

[The Chair, Liberal, Lisa Hepfner]

Mr. Hardy, you have the floor.

[Gabriel Hardy, Conservative, Montmorency—Charlevoix, QC]

I have a simple question. It's something we have talked about together. I'm not answering Mr. Myles's questions directly. However, before he moved the dilatory motion, he mentioned an informal agreement. I'm just trying to understand something.

Basically, we're going to move motions to have them accepted here. There are already a few that aren't being accepted. What is expected of us? Do you want us to not move any motions without talking to you in advance? Do we have to move motions for studies that we think are worth doing just for you to vote against them, every time, until it suits you?

I just want to fully understand how we're going to work in the future.

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

No, it's just that we had already discussed the other motions we were committing to. Honestly, with amendments, we're trying to reach a consensus where everyone wants to do these studies. We talked about a number of things in camera. We try to deal with these motions when they arrive, in good faith. We asked for a bit of time for this. Thank you for giving us some time for this. You have every right to show up with other motions. That's natural. However, it's also natural for us to discuss motions together. We are already in discussions, together, on other projects. That's the idea.

[The Chair, Liberal, Lisa Hepfner]

Mr. Lawton.

[Andrew Lawton, Conservative, Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, ON]

Thank you for that.

This was not a surprise. I mean, this motion was put on notice verbally at the last meeting. I think everyone knew that this was something we were intending to raise. As far as I'm concerned, and I'm not saying this declaratively, I have not received any communication from any members of the Liberal side of this committee regarding proposals for previous studies that we have put forward and may or may not have discussed in camera. I don't want to divulge that with any depth. I would also note that we have not reached any agreement or adopted any motion for a Conservative study.

We have put forward suggestions in good faith. This time it was once again suspended, not because there was a lack of recognition of what we were trying to study, but because there was apparently—I don't want to put words in Mr. Myles' mouth—some imputation that it was presented in bad faith, which certainly was not the case. I thought this was an issue that affected our communities. This is in good faith, and I would welcome support for a study that the Conservatives have initiated, as has been discussed in the past.

[The Chair, Liberal, Lisa Hepfner]

Ms. Auguste has the floor. It will then be Mr. Myles.

[Tatiana Auguste, Liberal, Terrebonne, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair. However, I'm going to yield the floor to Mr. Myles, since it isn't on the same topic. I could go after Mr. Myles.

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

I would like to move to resume debate, for which I guess we need unanimous consent, on what we spoke about—the motion that we spoke about in camera. I think if we have unanimous consent, we can resume debate on that.

[Andrew Lawton, Conservative, Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, ON]

Could we have a brief suspension, Madam Chair?

[The Chair, Liberal, Lisa Hepfner]

Absolutely.

We're back.

Mr. Lawton, I think you still have the floor.

[Andrew Lawton, Conservative, Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, ON]

It's Mr. Myles. I had just asked for the suspension.

[The Chair, Liberal, Lisa Hepfner]

You're good, then.

[Andrew Lawton, Conservative, Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, ON]

Yes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Lisa Hepfner]

Is it back to you, then, Mr. Myles?

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

I had asked whether there was unanimous consent to continue the debate.

[The Chair, Liberal, Lisa Hepfner]

All right.

We have unanimous consent to resume debate on a previous motion that was submitted to this committee in camera. Is that correct?

[Some hon members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Liberal, Lisa Hepfner]

I'm looking for hands to see who wants to talk about it.

Mr. Myles, go ahead.

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

Thanks. I appreciate this.

Thanks to Ms. Thomas as well for the continued dialogue throughout this. I appreciate being able to get to a yes.

We considered the motion. I think it's strong and reasonable. We have a couple of amendments. We'll share the amendments. You can take a look at them and let us know what you think.

I don't think it changes the thrust of the study. It just focuses a bit on some organizations and initiatives that work on some of the unity questions brought up in the question. There was a difference between what was tabled and what was originally brought forth at the committee in the number of meetings. Just to let you know, our amendment is based on the original, which was four meetings.

I'll just take a second and pass these around.

With our amendments, it would read as follows:

Given that:

Canada is a diverse country defined by its rich cultures, artistic expression, natural landscapes and regional uniqueness; and

Canada faces an evolving global and domestic environment that presents new challenges to our shared sense of identity and belonging;

That, pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage undertake a study of no fewer than four (4) meetings to examine organizations and initiatives that contribute to Canadian national identity, and that help foster greater community connectedness and shared sense of belonging;

That the committee invite the Minister of Identity and Culture to appear for no less than one (1) hour as part of this study;

That the committee report its findings to the House; and

That, pursuant to Standing Order 109, the committee request that the government table a comprehensive response to the report.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Lisa Hepfner]

Go ahead, Mr. Lawton.

[Andrew Lawton, Conservative, Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, ON]

Thank you.

I'm just reading this right now.

My first reactions to this are that, under the original motion, it said no less than “four (4) meetings” to examine the current state of Canadian national identity, social cohesion and shared sense of belonging. In the amendment, if I'm reading this correctly, it's “to examine organizations and initiatives that contribute to”. That strikes me as significantly narrowing the scope, because we'd be looking only at groups and programs that connect to the issue, rather than the issue itself. I'm not sure if that was the intention of it.

If I read that, I think we would certainly be able to look at organizations and initiatives if we're examining the state of Canadian national identity, but I'm worried that, in this case, we're effectively auditing whatever heritage-oriented groups may be called to testify without getting at the bigger picture, which is that we're trying to acknowledge what is the state of national identity.

I'm throwing out an example here, but the state of national identity could involve polling on how Canadians identify with certain symbols. That wouldn't fall under examining “organizations and initiatives”. I think we're narrowing this instead of looking at the broader issue here.

[The Chair, Liberal, Lisa Hepfner]

I would just note that parties can invite whatever witnesses they can.

I have Mr. Myles, then Mrs. Thomas and then Mr. Lemire.

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

I agree with the chair that there are no limitations on which organizations you ask. You can ask a polling firm to come and talk about those exact details. What I think it does is give it a bit of a focus, instead of being a potentially open—completely open—question with no focus. I don't think that any of the questions that could be presented in the previous study cannot be addressed in this study.

[The Chair, Liberal, Lisa Hepfner]

Mrs. Thomas is next.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

I would just reiterate, I guess, what my colleague is saying, and that is that we've gone from wanting to discuss an observation or an issue that faces our country, which is an exploration of where we are at in terms of unity as a nation, in terms of identity as a nation and in terms of social cohesion and belonging. Where are we at? Let's take the temperature of that. That was the initial motion.

Now, we're saying, “No, no, no, we actually don't care about taking the pulse of the nation. We actually just want to talk to organizations that are doing wonderful things.” That's great that they're doing wonderful things to help foster greater community and connectedness and shared belonging. That's great, but we haven't taken the time to actually understand the real issues and why these organizations and initiatives are even needed.