Canadian Heritage Committee on Feb. 2nd, 2009

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

I certainly want to work in a spirit of cooperation, Mr. Chair. Nothing would give me more pleasure. But I think that all of us around this table have a duty to be logical and consistent. Scarcely 20 minutes ago, we voted on a proposal whereby motions had to be submitted with 48 hours' notice. I was opposed to that and said that it was not consistent with reality or with our needs as parliamentarians. Does everyone understand that, no matter what happens today, I have to make my motion at the end of this meeting? Even if I give it to the clerk at the end of this meeting, I will not be able to discuss it until next Monday. That is a calendar week. I feel that is a long time, and not very efficient. That is my first point.

My second point is about the consistency. You voted for 48 hours, but because the Conservative party wants to bring its minister here so that he can brag about his alleged budget, we have to roll out the red carpet and forget all the rules just because it is the minister. If what he has to say is really important, I am sure that he could come at another time. Anyway, we can ask him questions in the House of Commons every day. I have asked him questions almost every day since the House reconvened. So we can talk to him and it is his duty to talk to us. We also have the adjournment debates. Instead of sending us his parliamentary secretary, he could perhaps come and provide us with some answers during the late show at 5:30 p.m. If he really wants to answer our questions, he can. So, if you really want the minister to come here next week, you have to take another look at the routine motions, change 48 hours' notice to 24 hours' notice, or allow exceptions. That is consistency in my mind, Mr. Chair.

I certainly want to meet the minister, Mr. Chair. In fact, I went to his office last November and got a lot of answers to my questions. I suggest that everyone does the same. I am sure that he can find another convenient time to tell us what he was going to tell us next week. As the minister, does he think that he does not have to follow the rules we have just established? Does he think that they do not apply to him? I am sure that is not what our Conservative friends meant.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Mr. Angus.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Certainly we can ask questions in question period; however, he's a new minister and we all have many questions. I think this is a misinterpretation of what the standing orders of this committee are and I think we would be off to a very bad first round. If Madam Lavallée thinks we're going to be able to get the minister back when she says he's going to come back, because she calls him back, well, I've been around here long enough to know that when a minister decides he's not coming back, we wait and we wait and we wait.

The offer has been made. I think it's an offer in good faith. There will be issues on which we want him to come back in the future, and we will no doubt put in a 48-hour notice, but I'm asking you as chair to rule on this because I think she is misinterpreting the standing regulations.

They certainly made efforts to speak to each one of our parties about this in advance. If the committee hadn't been struck, it would have been impossible to bring this in on 48 hours' notice. They did make every effort.

We defer to you. I think this is a good way to start off our committee hearings. More questions will be given. We need to move on. I think you need to overrule this objection.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Mr. Bruinooge.

[Rod Bruinooge, Conservative, Winnipeg South, MB]

Mr. Chair, I have one last objection. It's similar to what Mr. Angus is stating. Of course, I put forth in the last round my understanding of how Mr. Del Mastro's motion was actually put on the table and accepted by you previous to our routine motions being adopted. Also, Mr. Angus has made that similar statement, as has Madam Dhalla. So in light of the fact that there's a multi-partisan understanding of what occurred here in our committee today, I think maybe you could consider having a ruling on this. Either way, obviously, that would end this discussion.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

I must say that this motion was brought forward before we went through our routine motions and their adoption.

I understand. I've gone through the two sleeps, I've gone through the 24 hours, and I've gone through all the various things over the last couple of years of how people wanted to circumvent this committee. I remember, when I was sitting in opposition, how many times we asked the minister to come before a committee and I remember not getting the minister at all. He didn't come. When you have a minister who has said he will come before a committee and we're saying, well, because it's not....

This motion was brought forward at 4:30. Forty-eight hours would be 4:30 on Wednesday. I took out the one hour. If you want to give up an hour, I will accept this motion that the minister come before us, and if he doesn't come at 3:30 because he's not allowed to come in and take questions at 3:30, then he comes in at 4:30. That's what I will--

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

No way! A point of order, Mr. Chair.

That means that if the motion is made now, we are going to debate it in 48 hours. That is what your rules mean. I just have one thing to say. The Standing Committee on Heritage stopped work last August 26. We did not finish our work analyzing the recent elimination of federal government programs that provided funding for culture. We had agreed that committee members were going to provide the clerk with a list of witnesses.

If you agree to this proposal, you will surely agree to my motion. I would like my motion discussed too. It deals with our action plan. If an exception is being made for Mr. Del Mastro, I would like an exception to be made for me too so that we can discuss future work as well as analyze the funding cuts. I am prepared to make an exception for Mr. Del Mastro, but I would like the same courtesy.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

I stand corrected in my statement, because we didn't have unanimous consent and that's quite noticeable around the room. It looks as if we're going to have a kind of rocky road in this committee again, and if that's what it's going to be, then we're going to have long, long meetings. I don't like long, long meetings where there are hardships put out for whomever. I don't take that lightly. If you don't want the minister here, the minister may never, ever set foot in this room. I honour what Mr. Del Mastro said, in that the minister has said he can be here next Monday. We can talk about it.

This motion has been brought forward today, and I'm going to make a ruling that we will deal with this motion first thing on Wednesday. If we can't first thing on Wednesday, then at 4:30 this will have had 48 hours--it's been in front of me at least for 48 hours, and it's been to the clerk within 48 hours--and we will then deal with this on Wednesday. I am not going to bend on the 48 hours.

Ms. Dhalla.

[Ruby Dhalla, Liberal, Brampton—Springdale, ON]

I understand that people have differing viewpoints and so forth, but from everyone I have spoken to who has sat on this committee beforehand, including you, Mr. Chair, and from all of the feedback I've heard, this committee has worked extremely well. There has been a spirit of cooperation and collaboration, and that's why it's unfortunate that this meeting is getting off to the start that it is.

I think it's important that the speakers list that is formed by the clerk be respected. I understand that people get passionate and want to interrupt other speakers, but I think I was on the speakers list twice and I was interrupted by one of our colleagues. I think it's important that if you have something to say, you raise your hand and go in turn, whenever your name is on the speakers list.

The second thing I wanted to bring forward is the fact that right now we're not scheduled to sit on Wednesday. If people have such difficulty voting for an important motion.... I think all of us around this room do want to hear from the minister, and we do want to ask him questions on what's impacting cultural organizations across the country and impacting many Canadians, but if we are not scheduled to sit on Wednesday because we cannot resolve an issue in five minutes, which I think would be very simple, then I would request that you call a meeting and we utilize all of the resources we have around the table here just to deal with a simple motion, because people in this room are not being flexible enough to deal with it at hand. I think having to call a meeting on Wednesday because we are not being flexible and perhaps prudent enough to deal with an important motion is really a waste of the resources, the time and energy of the people of the House of Commons, especially the administrative staff.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Mr. Angus.

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

Mr. Speaker.... You would make an excellent Speaker, by the way. Have I ever told you that?

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Butter me up.

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

Mr. Chair, again, this first meeting is to establish the ground rules for how we're going to work with each other. I think Madame Lavallée is under the misunderstanding that she cannot discuss future business without a motion. If we have to have motions with 48 hours' notice to discuss how we're going to work together, then this committee will never work.

I was actually thinking we were going to sit down today and hear from people about their ideas, because what we need in this committee is a long-term vision. We have short-term issues, but there are key elements on which we as a committee can agree to work together. If we have to cancel the meeting now and walk out of here so that we walk back in on Wednesday at 3:30 and agree to this motion, so be it, but it sets a really bad precedent in terms of how we are going to work on future issues. We then should sit down and say, so what is it we need to do? Well, so-and-so would like to look at this, or how about this? We have done that on every substantive piece of work that this committee has done.

Mr. Chair, I'll back you up 100%. I'll be damned if this committee is going to be reduced to the dysfunction I've seen in other committees. If we cannot work on some basic goodwill and trust, we are wasting the taxpayers' money. I would like us to deal with this now, but if we have to, then I'd say let's leave now and come back at 3:30 on Wednesday, vote to have the minister come, and then from there on in we'll just have to piece it as we go along.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Mr. Del Mastro.

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Obviously, I appreciate the comments of the members at the table. I think, in fairness to what Mr. Angus is getting at, I did undertake to speak to the opposition critics last week with respect to this motion to let them know the committee hadn't been struck.

I had gone to the minister some months go and requested that the minister would appear before the committee soon after it was struck to answer questions that I know all the members at the committee table have, because I was here in the summer when we had an emergency meeting of this committee. That was never resolved, frankly. I think it would only be responsible for those to be resolved so that the committee can move forward and undertake studies that I think would bring value not just to this committee but to this Parliament, and ultimately to those we all represent.

So that's why the minister's coming. And I did make sure that everyone had plenty of notice and I tried to make sure that we could vote on it. I think it's complete nonsense that we'd have to come back here on Wednesday at 4:30 to vote on a motion that, from what I can see, is strongly supported. I'll come back on Wednesday at 4:30 if I have to, but I can't understand why we can't deal with it right now.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Ms. Lavallée.

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

I do not want to be difficult. As I said, I want to work cooperatively, but also consistently. You voted for the 48 hours, I did not. I did not want that; 24 hours would have suited me. You have to know what you are voting for and the consequences it has.

That said, Mr. Chair, I am ready to vote on Mr. Moore's visit, especially if we can ask him questions on any topic.

But I would like us to discuss the committee's action plan, which is to analyze the effect of the elimination of government funding programs for artists. I am ready to discuss Mr. Moore's visit if I can then discuss the action plan and the funding cuts. That is moving in your direction, is it not?

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Mr. Rodriguez.

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

It seems reasonable, if she's ready, to discuss and vote on the motion. I agree that there are other topics we should be able to discuss.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Okay.

Mr. Bruinooge.

[Rod Bruinooge, Conservative, Winnipeg South, MB]

Mr. Chair, with all due respect, I'm going to bring forward a challenge to your assertion that Mr. Del Mastro's original motion was not in good standing. I think this might be the only way for us to break this situation.

[An hon. member]

She's already agreed to it, so why don't you just—

[Rod Bruinooge, Conservative, Winnipeg South, MB]

Oh, she agreed to it? Okay, I didn't understand that she had agreed to it.

[An hon. member]

Why don't you just call the question?

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Okay. I'm going to call the question, being that we do have—