Canadian Heritage Committee on May 3rd, 2007

[Tina Keeper, Liberal, Churchill, MB]

Mr. Chair, it is not accepted. I would like to stick with the original motion.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Okay, then.

Mr. Warkentin.

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Peace River, AB]

So that we have clarification, if we keep it as it was presented originally, are we effectively starting a new additional study?

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Mr. Clerk, would you answer, please?

[Chad Mariage]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Under Standing Order 108(2), you would create a new study. A study doesn't necessarily mean that you have to have five, six, seven, or ten meetings on it. It could be one meeting, but you would be creating a new study to study this particular thing.

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Peace River, AB]

Would we do this after the CBC mandate review?

[Chad Mariage]

That's entirely up to the committee. The only thing I should specify is that if you wait until after your study, chances are we'll be receiving the order in council papers, the order of reference, at which point the committee only has 30 sitting days, as Standing Order 110 automatically kicks in.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Mr. Miller, I think you had your hand up first. Then we'll go to Mr. Angus.

[Larry Miller, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Not having sat on this committee on a regular basis, I certainly haven't been dealing with this issue, but one thing that is very obvious and that bothers me is that it seems we're trying to come up with some new process, as opposed to a traditional way of handling things. If it's fair, through you, I'll ask the member what the reasoning is behind that.

Secondly, the mover of the motion initially agreed to a friendly amendment. I think your ruling on that.... Can you be in favour of something and change your mind more than once?

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

We'll just hold on that, for a second.

Mr. Angus.

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

Thank you.

I think we're getting somewhat hung up on this. Under the Guy Fournier process it was clear: he appeared, we gave our recommendation, and at that time it was approved by committee. We accepted that this was a man the government had chosen and under the principles it worked. Then we reported and he was put forward.

If this is to be “a new study”, well, it can be a one-day study, but I believe it is crucial to what we're discussing here. One of the key recommendations that would come out is on the future direction of governance. His position is one of the absolute, key pillars. If we do not take this in the midst of our existing study, we're losing a key opportunity.

I would suggest that as soon as possible we invite him here. We can hear his credentials and hear his vision for the CBC. It will also help us guide our future decisions, in terms of knowing where we need to go with our recommendations, which will be coming forward. A one-day study would be very helpful at this point.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Thank you.

Ms. Keeper first.

[Tina Keeper, Liberal, Churchill, MB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would like to clarify a couple of things. One is that I'm new to this process, and two, I don't feel that was a formal sort of questioning, and I was surprised that the chair would have done it. I don't think you should make a big deal out of it.

I think the reason has been stated: that we are in a CBC mandate review. It's important, I think, that we have the ability to move forward. This is an issue that has been raised by a number of our presenters. This is an enormous task that we have, particularly at this point in time, and if the committee would accept, then I think it would be wise for us to even interrupt the CBC study to do a one-day study, then do our report, and then continue with our CBC mandate.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Thank you.

Mr. Warkentin, make it very short, please.

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Peace River, AB]

I'd like some clarification through you, Mr. Chair, from the clerk with regard to Mr. Fournier. I'm wondering whether Standing Order 108(2) has been used as a Standing Order for the approval of appointments before.

My understanding is that Mr. Fournier was approved through Standing Order 110(1). My issue is, I guess with regard to what standing order was used. I think we're effectively changing the Standing Orders if we don't defer to the one that's traditionally used for this.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Let me say one thing. A friendly amendment has to be friendly, and right now it doesn't seem as if it's a friendly amendment.

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Peace River, AB]

I understand that, but I just—

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

If you want to make a formal amendment, we can do that and can vote on it. I do want to vote on this today.

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Peace River, AB]

I'd be happy to make a formal amendment, then, to replace Standing Order 108(2) with Standing Order 108(1). That's not because I don't believe we need to—

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

You mean Standing Order 110(1).

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Peace River, AB]

That's right, yes.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Okay. Is there any debate on the amendment?

Then we'll take the question on the amendment.

(Amendment negatived)

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

We will now vote on the motion:

That pursuant to Standing Order 108(2) the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage review the appointment of Mr. Timothy Casgrain as Chair of the Board of the CBC-Radio Canada.

All those in favour of the motion?

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Peace River, AB]

Are we going to have the opportunity to debate this?

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

The question's put. There's no more debate.