Evidence of meeting #24 for Canadian Heritage in the 39th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was flag.
A recording is available from Parliament.
3:55 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Gary Schellenberger
I totally understand it. Mr. Siksay alluded to that earlier when he asked if we are doing clause-by-clause today, and I said no.
I will take full responsibility for the clumsiness of the writing of this, because what I was trying to do today was to get a day in which we could just take a breath of fresh air and see where we're going forward. What we were going to do on Tuesday was work on Bill C-327.
April 3rd, 2008 / 3:55 p.m.
Liberal
Denis Coderre Liberal Bourassa, QC
Let me push a little bit more, because I like that.
When we're looking at Standing Order 97.1(1), we're talking about what we're going to do with that bill. Can we then put up an option? You have two options. You have an option to deal with it, and that's your calendar, and you have an option not to deal with it and kill it. That's another option.
Now, is that to amend the order of the day, which is not a motion on new business. It's about changing the agenda, and on that agenda we're dealing with what we are going to do with Bill C-327, because that's the committee business.
3:55 p.m.
Conservative
Ed Fast Conservative Abbotsford, BC
Mr. Chair, with respect, based on the orders of the day that we have on our agenda, we are entitled to move ahead with that committee business. One of those items is the clause-by-clause study, whether it was your intention to actually include that on here or not. The agenda and the notice clearly state we're dealing with the clause-by-clause.
I think Mr. Coderre is saying he'd like to move forward with it. On our side, we'd like to move forward with it. I don't know about the other two parties represented here. I think we can expedite this if we can just get a consensus.
4 p.m.
NDP
Bill Siksay NDP Burnaby—Douglas, BC
Well, Chair, I wish folks would accept your apologies for the fuzziness of the language, because it puts me in a very difficult position. Today when I checked the committee's agenda there was no mention of clause-by-clause study of Bill C-327.
In fact the copy of the agenda that I brought with me has committee business, notice of motion from Bill Siksay, and planning for future business.
Then I arrive at committee and find this longer agenda that includes clause-by-clause study. In fact my office tried to contact the clerk's office a number of times to clarify if this was on the agenda. Unfortunately, we didn't get clarification. I asked you before the meeting began, Chair, whether this was clause-by-clause study, and you told me that it was not; it was a discussion about how we'd do that stage of the work on the bill.
I would ask if we could put it off to one of our meetings next week, to do clause-by-clause. I'm hoping that I might have, again, some amendments that I think may be helpful to ensure that we take Monsieur Biron's intentions seriously about addressing this important issue, as well as many of our witnesses' concerns about this issue, but also avoid the problems of censorship, which are a real serious concern to many of us.
I do think that might be a helpful endeavour for the committee to consider. I would like to have that opportunity to present those, to at least get some finality on those motions to decide whether they can go forward or not.
4 p.m.
Liberal
Denis Coderre Liberal Bourassa, QC
On a point of clarification—since I'm passing from defence to defence of heritage—what is in the procedure, the actual article, saying that everything is based on 48 hours, and is there an exception? I'd just like to know if there is exception to the motion?
4 p.m.
Conservative
4 p.m.
Liberal
Denis Coderre Liberal Bourassa, QC
What I would propose then, and clearly I'm willing to work with my chair, is that I will table a motion for 48 hours. But I would suggest that we're voting against what you are proposing regarding Standing Order 97(1) with the calendar that we have in front of us.
4 p.m.
NDP
Bill Siksay NDP Burnaby—Douglas, BC
On a point of clarification, I'm not sure what Mr. Coderre means by voting against what's on the agenda in front of us. Is that not just the timeline and framework within which we work? It's not something the chair was recommending in terms of how long we spend on this issue or anything.
4 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Gary Schellenberger
I think what I heard from Mr. Coderre is that he is going to put forth a notice of motion that we not proceed with clause-by-clause. Do I understand that correctly?
4 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Gary Schellenberger
That will be brought forward at the beginning of the next meeting.
Thank you.
One thing I'd like to do before we move to the next section and before we begin discussions is to draw everyone's attention to a particular matter that I have. I have noticed that we have four motions before us dealing with the CBC. If we have all of these, it would mean four separate meetings with the CBC witnesses on four separate issues. There's also the concern that these motions all deal with highly specific individual decisions that have been made by the CBC, such as programming and management decisions, and they may border on micromanagement.
May I suggest, for the purpose of our discussion, that we remove these four motions and instead call the CBC to appear before us and discuss their plans and priorities. In that way we can have the CBC here for a single two-hour meeting and we can ask all the questions.
4:05 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Gary Schellenberger
If we call them to discuss plans and priorities, we can also avoid the impression that we are micromanaging at arm's length.
4:05 p.m.
Conservative
4:05 p.m.
NDP
Bill Siksay NDP Burnaby—Douglas, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I appreciate the concern about micromanaging, and it's something we've talked about before. I have to say that one of the motions I gave notice of was regarding the disbanding of the CBC Radio Orchestra, which has been of great concern to many Canadians and certainly many people in the greater Vancouver area that I represent, where the orchestra itself is based. People are very concerned about losing that venerable cultural institution that has served Canadians for 70 years.
I do understand the concern about not wanting to micromanage the CBC. I understand concerns about an arm's-length relationship between CBC and government, and I do think you've made a helpful suggestion for dealing with the various concerns that have come up. I could support your decision to call the CBC for a general meeting.
4:05 p.m.
Conservative
4:05 p.m.
Conservative
Jim Abbott Conservative Kootenay—Columbia, BC
I think we have tremendous cooperation within this committee. If we take a look at the Broadcasting Act in part III, section 40, and I quote:
The Corporation is ultimately accountable, through the Minister, to Parliament for the conduct of its affairs.
Also, there is the Broadcasting Act, part III, subsection 46(5):
The Corporation shall, in the pursuit of its objects and in the exercise of its powers, enjoy freedom of expression and journalistic, creative and programming independence.
One other relevant section is part III of the Broadcasting Act, section 39:
Subject to this Part, the Board is responsible for the management of the businesses, activities and other affairs of the Corporation.
So what we've decided to do here is completely in line with the Broadcasting Act.
There's just one piece of wordsmithing that I think is important, and that is that we use the word “invite”, that we invite them to come to the committee. I think we would find that possibly Mr. Lacroix, Mr. Stursberg, and Mr. Lafrance would be open to that idea.
It's just a matter of getting organized with CBC. I understand that because they are also before another committee of Parliament during the month of April, they also have to make presentations to the CRTC. Understandably, they are quite tied up. My understanding is that they would be available at the very first part of May, but because of the CRTC hearings and because of the other committee hearings they've been invited to, it would be exceptionally difficult for them to be able to fit us in during April.
So it's just a matter of cooperating with them, with us having that understanding.
4:05 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Gary Schellenberger
I'd just like to give notice that Ms. Mourani had a death in the family and she had to go back to Lebanon. She's going to be away for two weeks. So that would work well, because one of her motions was one of those. So if it were May 1, she would be back for that. Again, she expressed her concern that we not have something when she wasn't here.
So if everyone is in favour of that, that's what we'll do, then. Thank you very much for that.
That leaves us with a motion that we're studying: the policy on half-masting of the Canadian flag.
Mr. Abbott.
4:05 p.m.
Conservative
Jim Abbott Conservative Kootenay—Columbia, BC
As it is my motion, I don't mind speaking to it, hopefully very briefly.
As committee members will know, it has been about six weeks since I put this before committee, informally and then formally. I want you to know that the government wants to address this issue of half-masting in the most non-partisan way possible. I'm sure there isn't a person in this room—let alone members—who would want us to politicize the issue of the ultimate sacrifice that people make, whether they be soldiers or people in public service. This is one of the most solemn parts of our civilization, as we recognize the people who pay the ultimate sacrifice.
Committee members will know that I spoke probably two or three times, a couple of times in camera as well as in public, about the fact that the government had requested a report and that the government was prepared to give the report to the committee for the committee to take a look at. Unfortunately, due to other pressures, the committee didn't get around to taking advantage of that offer or handling this motion. That's just the way it was.
The report, I want to be clear, is not the position of the government. The report presents, as advice to cabinet, a position of experts in this field. That does not mean they are right. That does not mean they are wrong. They are experts in this field. This is an emotional issue because it is literally a life and death issue, and the government has the highest respect for that.
The government also recognizes that there was a vote yesterday in Parliament that expressed one perspective. That's fine. That was the option that members had. But our feeling on this issue is that the flag does not belong to one party or one group of individuals. The flag, the way in which we handle the flag, and the respect that we show for the people who have paid the ultimate price—and their families—is an issue that, although it is emotional, hopefully we can respectfully discuss and arrive at the most appropriate conclusion on.
So I speak in the strongest possible terms to say that if possible, as a committee, we should unanimously accept this motion, accept this responsibility. It is a responsibility being handed off by the government to this committee for advice. If it's going to tie up a lot of the committee's time, it might even be advisable to have a subcommittee of committee members or other members of Parliament to handle this.
But again, I don't think I can overstate our feeling on the importance of this not being a political or partisan issue.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
