CHPC Committee Meeting

     We'll start our meeting.

    Welcome to the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage. This is an in camera meeting on committee business.

    [Pursuant to a motion passed by the committee on June 5, 2013, the following proceedings are now public.]

    The Chair: We had been going through the witness list. We have a number of approved witnesses.

     Mr. Calandra.

    Since we just passed Bill C-49, I wonder if we could talk about that.

    Believe it or not, I was just getting to that. Since Bill C-49 just passed, I thought maybe we should discuss how we want to handle that as a committee.

    Mr. Calandra, do you want to speak to that?

    Yes. I know how crushed my colleagues across will be, but maybe we could delay some of the study on history and deal with the bill that was referred to us. I'm not sure what the opposition have in mind with respect to timing on this, but perhaps Monday we could come in with a list of potential witnesses specific to Bill C-49.

    I know the minister said he would be available next Wednesday, and he will bring with him Mr. O'Neill of the Museum of Civilization. They will be available for the full two hours. If that meets with the approval of everyone, then we could perhaps have another meeting on the Monday and move to clause-by-clause on the following Wednesday.

    Mr. Calandra is suggesting for next week that we discuss witnesses for this study on Monday, that the minister appear for the full two hours on Wednesday, and that for the following week we have more witnesses on June 10 and go to clause-by-clause on Wednesday, June 12.

    Is there any discussion?

    Madame Boutin-Sweet.

    That means that we should bring our list of witnesses to Monday's meeting. We don't need to submit it beforehand. Is that right?

    That's fine, yes.

    We will proceed, then, in that fashion for the next four meetings.

    Do we want to continue our discussion on witnesses?

    Could we pass that as a motion?

    Is it the will of the committee to proceed in that fashion?

    Some hon. members: Agreed.

    The Chair: Okay. We will do that.

    (Motion agreed to)

    The Chair: On the witness list for our study, is there any discussion?

    Excuse me. I have a question. Monday we'll have the witnesses for Bill C-49, right?

    Yes.

    We have so many witness lists, things got a bit muddled.

     Please bring the names of your witnesses on Monday. I would suggest getting them in to the clerk even before that, if you want. We will discuss witnesses on Monday. On Wednesday we will have Minister Moore and representatives from the Museum of Civilization for two hours. On Monday, June 10, we will hear from witnesses, and on Wednesday, June 12, we will do clause-by-clause for Bill C-49.

    Is that clear to everybody?

    Madame Boutin-Sweet.

    Will the meeting with the minister and Mr. O'Neill be televised? I would like it to be.

    It's up to the committee. If we want to have a televised meeting on Wednesday with the minister, we can try to arrange that, if possible. That would require us to be in a different room.

    Are you suggesting that?

    Ms. Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet: Yes.

    The Chair: Okay. Madame Boutin-Sweet would like Wednesday's meeting with the minister to be televised.

    Is there any discussion? Would we like to do that?

    Some hon. members: Agreed.

    The Chair: The clerk will endeavour to get us a room, maybe in Centre Block, if it's available for Wednesday. If not, it would be Wellington.

    For our study on Canadian history, there are two lists in front of you. One is the witnesses approved at our last committee meeting; the other is those pending decision.

    The clerk would like to explain something with regard to the two lists.

    For the pending list, you'll see that I left in the ministers of education. Also there are some former parliamentarians. I didn't know if you wanted them completely stricken from the list or if you wanted to come back to them eventually.

    This is a pending list for the whole study, so you can let me know if you want to strike them off. That will be a committee decision. Please let me know if you want me to do that, just so there is no confusion. Some have already told me that we've already made a decision, but for me the decision wasn't made to completely strike them off. It was just that for now we weren't approving them, but we might come back to them. I just wanted to clarify that.

     That was certainly my understanding, that we were reserving the ability to call those witnesses, but for now there wouldn't be any ministers of education or former or current parliamentarians invited.

    That's subject, of course, to the will of the committee.

    There's just one other thing. You'll see that some are struck off. The office of Mr. Simms asked me to take them off just for the purpose of discussion right away. So I struck them off, but it's the same thing; they're still there in case you want to come back to them at one point.

    So Mr. Simms is withdrawing them as a suggestion—

    For now, but they're still there, just like the ministers and parliamentarians.

    Okay.

    On the proposed witnesses, the ones pending a decision, does anyone want to move or discuss...?

    Mr. Calandra.

    Can I move—subject to discussion—that the balance of the Conservative witness list be approved?

    The balance of the Conservative witness list is on page 1. It goes up to number 21 on page 2. Mr. Calandra would like to move that these witnesses be invited.

    Is it the will of the committee to invite these witnesses?

    Could we take a minute to look at that?

    Yes.

    Let's suspend for a minute or two.

    The way we left off was that Mr. Calandra was moving the remainder of the Conservative witnesses.

    Is there any discussion?

    Is it the will of the committee that the clerk invite these Conservative witnesses?

    Some hon. members: Agreed.

    The Chair: Okay, then, we will invite the rest of the Conservative witnesses.

    Does anyone else want to propose or move any of the other witnesses who are on the pending list?

    Mr. Dubé.

    With regard to some of the ones from us that were pending, we can remove number 114.

    I am referring to the Société des professeurs d'histoire du Québec.

    I thought we pretty much settled that situation last time.

    On the rest of them, I don't know if the few sleeps in between have given any wisdom or anything, or if there's been a change of heart on the other side, but there seems to be some hesitation about them.

    I move that we adopt the rest of those witnesses, except for 114.

    And number 109; Ethel-Blondin Andrew is a former parliamentarian as well, so....

    Oh, sorry. I will plead ignorance on that one. I apologize.

    So you're saying 110, 111, 112, and 113 inclusive.

    That's right—please.

    Madame Boutin-Sweet.

    There is also number 108. No one in particular asked to hear from those witnesses, but they are the representatives of Pointe-à-Callière. We heard from them before and they were fine witnesses.

    Madame Boutin-Sweet would like to add 108 to that.

    Let's first deal with the original proposal by Mr. Dubé.

    Is there any discussion?

    Is it the will of the committee to invite...?

     Mr. Calandra.

    I'm sorry; I know we're not at 108, but we'll support 108—not 110, 111, 112, or 113.

    Okay. Mr. Calandra is saying that they would....

     Is it the will of the committee to invite witness number 108?

    Some hon. members: Agreed.

    The Chair: The clerk will invite witness 108.

    Mr. Calandra has indicated that he doesn't want to invite witness 110, 111, 112, or 113.

    Do we want to have a vote on that, or...?

    Chair, I don't mind leaving 113 off for now. We can maybe get back to her a little bit later on. We can put her in the pending list for future.

    But as for 110, 111, and 112, no, we would not support those.

    Madame Boutin-Sweet.

    What about witness 109?

    She's also on the future list, because she's a former parliamentarian.

    Ms. Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet: Yes. Okay.

    She would remain on the pending list, Madame Boutin-Sweet.

    I guess there is not consensus, then, on 110, 111, 112, or 113 at this time.

    Mr. Dubé.

    So 113 would be placed on the pending list, pending further discussion.

     Yes.

    A few others are proposed. Those would be the Liberal ones. Mind you, we can always add witnesses to this study. I suspect we will be adding witnesses.

    Mr. Calandra.

    Is it safe to say, Mr. Chair, that we have enough from all three parties at this particular point that we could have a number of meetings scheduled? Unless there's somebody that the Liberals really want to add to the list right now, perhaps we could just keep it as is.

    There is one individual that we particularly wish to have appear. That is Mr. John FitzGerald, who can tell us about the history of Newfoundland before Confederation. We think that would be very important to—

    That's number 65.

    Number 65, I'm sorry. Yes. I realize I had that same problem.

    Okay. That's fine.

    He's on the pending decision list.

    Okay. Sorry, I thought we did, but that's fine.

    He would be very qualified to talk about the history of Newfoundland before Confederation. That's important.

    Mr. Hsu is suggesting that we add John FitzGerald. That's number 65.

    Is it the will of the committee to invite John FitzGerald?

    Some hon. members: Agreed.

    The Chair: He will be invited.

    Recognizing that Mr. Simms isn't here to speak to all of these, are there any others that you want to speak to, Mr. Hsu?

    I would like to try to see if the committee would agree to add all these other names to the list as well.

    Mr. Calandra.

    We can do this one at a time for a long time, but if we have enough people to start.... Do we have enough people from all parties right now?

    Right now, we have 65 potential who are approved, plus the ones we've done. There are invitees from all the parties represented here: NDP, Liberal, and Conservative. We do have enough to start.

    Madame Boutin-Sweet.

    Yes, we have archeologists, but I don't think we have a lot of anthropologists.

    Number 67 on the list of witnesses is Hugh Brody, who brings a different perspective on the Dene people and Inuit. He studied in the north, so it might be interesting to hear his perspective on the north.

    It could also be interesting to hear from Georges Sioui.

    Madame Boutin-Sweet is suggesting that we invite Hugh Brody, anthropologist, from the Liberal list, number 67.

    Is it the will of the committee that...?

    Mr. Boughen.

    Chair, not a big thing, but Don Morgan, number 30 and Minister of Advanced Education, is a member of the Saskatchewan Party. He's not a Liberal.

    He's invited by the Liberals.

    Madame Boutin-Sweet is asking that we invite numbers 67 and 68. Is there any discussion?

    Is it the will of the committee to invite numbers 67 and 68?

    Some hon. members: Agreed.

    The Chair: Okay, and sorry to refer to these people by number, but there are so many of them. We're going to invite witness numbers 67 and 68.

    Mr. Hsu.

    Would there be some people from the Liberal list whom the Conservatives might be interested in inviting?

    Mr. Calandra.

    We have 68 people right now who are prepared to appear before—

    We have 85 now.

    Oh, 85. And we have a good list from all three parties. Perhaps we can start with that. As the study goes on, some of these people might fall off and more might come on. I'm not saying we don't reject whoever is left, but that we start and come back at some future date and review it some more.

    Everyone currently on the pending decision that we haven't approved will remain on the pending decision.

    Is there any specific couple you wanted to address?

    Scott, you can come to the table and talk. Nobody's going to bite.

    Does anybody want to add to the list right now? If we go over it one by one, it's going to take too long.

     No, no. What we'd like to ask is whether there are any individuals in the list that particularly the government side, or the NDP, would reject, just so that we don't think about them at all. Are there some they just want to reject now?

    That way, we know what to talk about—

    The point is that I don't know. Why don't we just see how the study goes? There might be some that....

    We already took the ministers of education and put them to pending. We already took the former members of Parliament and put them to the pending list. I think we already have Jack Granatstein on our list.

    If you want us to go over it right now and do them one by one, then I'll ask for a suspension and we can go over it again, or we can just do it one at a time. I'm easy.

    Mr. Cash.

    I know I'm kind of late to the game here today, but did we not...? We have 85 on the list—

    An hon. member: Yes, from all three parties.

    Mr. Andrew Cash: —that we've collectively agreed upon. Are you suggesting we go through the rest of them? Or what are you suggesting?

    I'm saying that we have 85. Let's leave the pending where it's at. Then we can come back to it once we've exhausted the 85 and add more to it.

    I'm not saying reject them; let's just come back to them.

    I think there's a consensus, then, and that's what we're going to do. We can always add others from the pending list. The clerk now has a number of 85 witnesses to invite from all three parties.

    Is there any other committee business?

    There's a motion to adjourn from Mr. Calandra.

    The meeting is adjourned.