Bill C-32 (40th Parliament, 3rd Session) Committee on Nov. 23rd, 2010

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

In speaking to the amendment that I put forward to the motion, if someone in the opposition would like to propose a subamendment to the motion that's more than four hours a week, we might be amenable to listening to this.

I can tell you that you don't strike a special legislative committee to sit for four hours a week. It's irresponsible. It's reprehensible. And it does not speak to the urgency from the Chamber of Commerce, industry, job creators, investors, and creators across this country--the people who write songs, take pictures, all the sorts of things this bill seeks to protect and reinstate, and recreate a market.... Our international partners have all underscored, highlighted, and put a star beside the urgency of this legislation and the opposition wants to meet for four hours a week.

Can we talk about intensive meetings in January? I'll tell you what, after New Year's Day, let's meet every day. I'm in. Let's put the kind of seriousness behind this bill--and the type of commitment that's required--that people expect this Parliament and their elected officials to put behind the bill.

I cannot believe that we're discussing meeting for four hours a week. There is a serious amendment to the motion on the table, that I've put there, and if somebody would like to propose a subamendment to it that is about meeting quite a bit more than four hours a week, we're prepared to entertain that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gord Brown]

Mr. Del Mastro, can you repeat your amendment, please?

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

Yes, I'd be happy to. I believe the current motion says “Mondays and Wednesdays from 3:30 to 5:30 p.m.”, and I would add “Mondays and Wednesdays between 7 and 10 p.m., and Tuesdays and Thursdays between 8:45 and 10:45 a.m.”

[Carole Lavallée, Bloc, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Chair, it is needless to say that I will be voting against that because I think my motion is reasonable. The Conservatives might move all the motions they want and for as long as they want, but that will not change my mind. Bill C-32 was introduced at first reading in the House on June 2. It took them five months to introduce the bill at second reading. Out of those five months, there were three months when Parliament was sitting and when they could have introduced it. They could have come back to the House with Bill C-32 at any time. Everyone was expecting it. And yet, we did not see anything resembling Bill C-32 until November 2, about two weeks ago.

And now they are off and running like crazy. They want to stuff C-32 down our throats and do not want to hear from witnesses, probably because they do not want to hear a number of truths. They are disregarding the rules of the game. We absolutely must take the time to do serious work and listen to what witnesses have to say. We need time between meetings to read the serious briefs that witnesses will have prepared. Some will place all their hopes in those briefs; others will infuse theirs with their articulated analyses. As parliamentarians, we must listen to them and respect what they have to say by taking the time to read what they will have written before presenting their summaries to us.

They can move amendments until the cows come home—it appears that is their right—but people on Twitter are listening and are realizing that the Conservatives only want to buy time. That is dumb because they are wasting both their time and our own today by moving amendment upon amendment, when all they want is to buy time. That does not make sense, but I for one am fed up and hope that this will be the last amendment we will have to defeat.

Thank you.

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

I'm actually disappointed to hear Madame Lavallée talk about the urgency with which the bill was brought to the floor, because she knows very well the bill was delayed for two weeks coming to the floor for an accommodation to Madame Lavallée. I was fine with that and I thought that was the right thing to do, but it certainly didn't speak to the urgency of the bill.

We had an agreement among all the parties that the bill would move to a legislative committee. We assumed that when we had that agreement it would allow for intensive committee hearings so that we could deal with this bill in a manner that reflects the urgency that people feel across this country, and that our international partners feel, in regard to the fact that we need to deal with this bill.

I cannot believe that opposition members feel that it is suitable that we meet four hours a week on this legislation—four hours a week. Why would we strike a special legislative committee to meet four hours a week? Why wouldn't we just send it to a regular committee where it could be kicked around?

[Carole Lavallée, Bloc, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

It's your decision--

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

No, it's not our decision, Madame Lavallée. It was a decision agreed to by all parties: that we would come together, work on this in an intensive fashion, and give this bill the respect it deserves. It is reprehensible that opposition parties are lining up behind four hours a week.

You know what? There is an amendment on the floor. I encourage members of the opposition who want to work and who actually respect this legislation, respect creators, respect job creators, and respect our international obligations--if you respect those things at all--to propose a subamendment to the amendment I've already made, a subamendment that includes a work schedule that's more than four hours a week.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gord Brown]

Mr. Angus.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Thank you.

Well, again, I do not want us to go off the rails on this. I mean, now we're reprehensible. Before, we were lazy. Before we become the axis of evil over here, I'd like to get back to the issue.

We have taken our issue seriously. It has taken us five years to get here. I'm not going to be railroaded in being told that I'm lazy and irresponsible for sitting down and reviewing this legislation. That's the way I'm going to vote.

So we can yell and shout and bang the table all we want, but it's not going to change my vote. I want to sit down and get to this legislation. I'd like to vote on the amendment and move on.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gord Brown]

Mr. Lake.

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB]

Again, maybe I was so surprised by the four-hour proposal that I responded in a way that.... Maybe I could have been more careful in choosing my words, but it is frustrating. Four hours a week for this legislation, I mean....

Charlie, you've had time to study it. I think it has been out there. That was kind of the whole point. It has been out there. We had consultations a year and a half ago. The legislation has been there for people to study, to look at, to come to positions and to present ideas on, and to be ready for this committee. You've had a lot of time to study it.

As for coming forward with four hours, quite honestly, that proposal was entirely unexpected, at least by me. I did not expect to come here today and have all three parties line up and present four hours a week as a schedule for studying this. Quite honestly, when we put it to a legislative committee, I expected that we would actually roll up our sleeves and work at this.

Yes, we want to hear from witnesses. We want to take the time to carefully consider everything, but as amended right now, we're talking about 14 hours a week. That's not a lot of time to hear from witnesses. We've all done that before. Should we need to move meetings around once or twice during the course of the schedule to accommodate one of the four parties' Christmas parties or something like that, surely we can do that if we need to and still meet the 14 hours a week that we have in this amended schedule.

It gives us a lot of time to do the reading we need to do and to follow up on the things we need to follow up on. It's a three-week period. We're not talking about doing this for months and months on end. It's a three-week period. Again, I think this is eminently reasonable. It's for five hours a couple of days a week and for only two hours on the other two days a week. It's not that difficult.

There is a reality to our circumstance right now in a minority Parliament. Let's face it. There is a real chance--we're beyond two years now--that Parliament may end and we may go to another election before this legislation passes. I think it's incumbent on all of us in all four parties to make sure that doesn't happen, to make sure we give this legislation every chance to actually pass and move through before that happens. There are a lot of realities to minority parliaments. It's the world we live in right now and I think we have to adapt ourselves to ensure that we're responsible in passing legislation that we all know is important.

Again, you have the same list of stakeholders that we have, and you've heard from those stakeholders how important this is. We have to get down to work on it. This 14 hours is not too heavy a schedule. We've all done it before.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gord Brown]

Ms. Boucher.

[Sylvie Boucher, Conservative, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

I totally agree. When I was asked to sit on a legislative committee, I knew that I would have to roll up my sleeves and work. I was really astonished to see that we would meet four hours a week. It would have been just as well to send this bill to any other committee; but we are here to work together. I think that this bill has major consequences for all artists and stakeholders. They have been waiting for a long time. I am quite disappointed by the opposition's attitude. We could have stayed in our own committees instead of coming here for four hours. On this committee, we want to work together in order to come up with something that is consistent, so that those people, who have been waiting for so long, can benefit from the bill. I think it would befit us to at least work to show that we are working for them. I will be working for them.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gord Brown]

Mr. McTeague.

[Dan McTeague, Liberal, Pickering—Scarborough East, ON]

I've had a lot of discussion with members around the table--not all of them, but many of them--and I'm not going to engage in the baiting of the opposition or the government. But I will simply point out that a serious attempt to try to deal with this issue could have occurred back in June when the legislation was proposed. It's now well into November. The decision by the PMO or whoever to rush this and to get it done by tomorrow or within 14-hours-a-week marathon runs.... I don't even think we had that much intensity when it came to NAFTA negotiations.

I'm willing to put it this way to the government members: that as we go forward with the proposal made by my colleagues in the opposition, there may be occasion to allow more time. But that will become a question of necessity as we see and compare the number of witnesses. The issue here for us is to stay to the norm. If we want to suspend the industry committee and the heritage committee at the same time, that could perhaps provide opportunities, but it would appear that your whip has been very insistent that it not happen. So we're going to stick with the hours that are provided to us. We will not rush this. We will be reasonable--

[The Chair, Conservative, Gord Brown]

Mr. Lake has a point of order.

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB]

Let me be clear on this side of the table that if that's a proposal from Mr. McTeague, it'll happen, okay, as far as we're concerned, as far as our INDU members are concerned.

[Dan McTeague, Liberal, Pickering—Scarborough East, ON]

Why not call the question, then, Mr. Lake?

[The Chair, Conservative, Gord Brown]

Okay. We are now voting on the amendment. All in favour?

(Amendment negatived)

Okay. We're back to the main motion.

Mr. Rodriguez.

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

Mr. Chair, I want to make a clarification. I heard Ms. Boucher say that we would be working four hours. That is not so: The committee will be holding hearing four hours a week. But that may represent 20 or 30 hours of personal work, depending on what you will be doing. I can assure you that we will be reading all the briefs. We have scheduled four hours of meetings for questions, but there will also be hours and hours of additional work. Out of respect for our witnesses, we need to be able to read their briefs.

I will not accumulate a stack of briefs and pretend that I have read them. I will read them. If we have to have team meetings, we will hold them. If we have to organize other meetings elsewhere, we will do so. We must deal with this in an extremely serious manner. Quite likely, when witnesses appear here before us, they will not be able to get all their message across and ask all of their questions. As a result, we will have to refer to their briefs, and we have already received quite a number. I simply want to make the following clarification: the committee as a whole will be working four hours a week, but each and every one of us will be spending hours and hours on this issue. I hope that you understand my point.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gord Brown]

Mr. Braid.

[Peter Braid, Conservative, Kitchener—Waterloo, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

As a relatively new member of Parliament, this is my first special legislative committee experience. As a footnote, I might add that I'm not overly impressed so far.

I wonder if either the chair or the clerk could shed some light on what the typical meeting schedule is for a special legislative committee--what the average has been in last session or two of Parliament--to give us some guiding points here. Surely the experience must be greater than two two-hour meetings per week with serious substantive issues like this. I wonder if we could shed some light on this.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gord Brown]

Mr. Braid, I did serve on a special legislative committee in the 38th Parliament. I was sitting in the opposition at that time. I can't remember the exact number of days we sat per week, but I know that we had a fairly intense schedule to get through that legislation the government of the day wished to move forward. It did happen in a very short period of time.

The clerk says there really is no standard and it's really up to the committee. We can do some additional research to see what kinds of timeframes other special legislative committees have had. Our analyst is prepared to give us some background on that--not at this moment, but we could do the research on that.

Mr. Del Mastro.

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I understand that we are back dealing with the original motion that calls for committee meetings between 3:30 and 5:30 on Mondays and Wednesdays. If members aren't prepared to meet beyond 5:30, there is no reason why we can't also meet on Tuesdays and Thursdays in addition.

For goodness' sake, folks, this is not an intensive schedule to tack on Tuesday and Thursday mornings to Monday and Wednesday afternoons. I'd like to propose an amendment that we also meet Tuesday and Thursday mornings between 8:45 and 10:45.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gord Brown]

Mr. Del Mastro, we have already voted on that. We did vote on an additional part, but....