Canadian Heritage Committee on Dec. 8th, 2009

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

It's an interesting argument, but I'm making a case for why we need to continue to debate the bill. Mr. Rodriguez's motion would seek to shut debate down.

It's interesting that members across the way seem to think they should push through a bad bill because they think it has good intentions, but it's a bad bill regardless. As I was referencing, when Mr. Campione was here with a panel he specifically indicated, as did the panel, that what was most important was an apology. But in 2005 the first thing they signed off on was an apology. They said it was not needed. The ACE agreement was made on the principle of no apology and no compensation, and he called that a revolutionary day, I believe. Mr. Calandra was quoting those comments the other day. He called it an “historic day” for the Italian Canadian community.

Now a bill comes forward that will open up the government to unlimited liability, and we have members across the way who think that's great. It's irresponsible to now say we should just shut down debate and move it forward, that we should just shut the committee down, Mr. Chair. If it's just a sham, then report the bill back to the House exactly the way it is in its current form, and let members stand if they want to be that irresponsible on the issue.

As I indicated many times, there's not a member on this committee, nor did we see a witness who was directly impacted by the actions that occurred in 1940, not one.... The apology, if there is to be one, is not theirs to give. Those who were directly affected by those actions should get the apology, and I don't recall them asking for it. I don't recall anybody who was directly impacted coming in and saying, “I don't accept that this country regrets its actions”. This country does regret its actions, and that was indicated by former Prime Minister Mulroney.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

You have to remember there is a motion on the floor right now. We are debating the motion to go to clause-by-clause. Am I correct?

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

Mr. Chairman, of course I'm debating that motion. I could absolutely debate the motion.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Okay.

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

Why do opposition members want to shut it down? Why do they want to shut it down? Why do they want to stop members from talking? Why do they want us to stop pulling out these facts? Because they're determined to push through a bad bill regardless. Regardless. I don't know if it's ethno-politics; I don't know what we're seeing here, Mr. Chairman, but we have a very bad bill, and I've talked at length about why it's a bad bill.

There are members on both sides of the House, Mr. Chairman, who are of Italian descent, but this bill did not seek to bring people together. It did not. It was made without consultation. We had an agreement coming forward as a government with the CHRP program, and this bill seeks to go right around it. In fact, it seeks to disregard it. So by shutting down debate on the issue and by suggesting that members on this side shouldn't be able to speak and speak freely on it, well, in my view that's an admission that they have an indefensible bill that should not be passed by this House of Commons, that is not reflective of the broader Italian-Canadian community. Frankly, I believe it never should have gotten to this point for a number of reasons, not the least of which is it incurs cost to the Government of Canada and should have required a royal recommendation.

I don't know if other members on this side of the table want to speak as to why they feel they should have the opportunity to continue to debate this bill, but I think this is a low point.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Mr. Bruinooge.

[Rod Bruinooge, Conservative, Winnipeg South, MB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I too will speak to this motion by Mr. Pablo Rodriguez in relation to shutting down one of the most important parts of our democratic process, which is of course being able to enter into a discourse that provides analysis as to why a bill should be considered or not.

We often have the opportunity to debate bills before this House, and I know, as a member of this government, it's been a great privilege to be able to debate bills. To be honest, in all my time as a member, and though I haven't sat as long as some of the people across the way, I've never seen a motion like this to shut down debate over a bill. In light of the fact that there is so much contentious opinion in relation to what this bill would in fact bring about, I think it's essential that we do have continuous debate until such time as we're limited by the rules of the House that govern private members' business and send bills back to the House. I think that's legitimate; I think that's our right as parliamentarians.

I know that when I was the parliamentary secretary in Mr. Del Mastro's seat, on a different committee--the aboriginal affairs committee, back in 2007--we had the opportunity to debate quite a lengthy bill in process in relation to an apology towards first nations, Métis people, and some Inuit, for the residential school system. During that process, which was negotiated over a number of years, there was an associated agreement, which of course this bill doesn't have, but of course there was a piece of legislation, an important piece of legislation, that had been consulted on for many years. The point I would of course like to make is that this bill was never shut down at any stage in relation to debate that surrounded the clauses in that bill. We had considerable time to discuss the many elements of that arrangement. Of course, that arrangement was consulted--

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

On a point of order, Mr. Chair, maybe you can tell us how much time you need per article. We can amend it--say, five minutes--so in good faith we can finish this this morning.

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

The bill will be reported back tomorrow, as you know, Mr. Rodriguez, regardless of what occurs today. If my colleague wants to speak, it's his right as a member of the committee.

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

Mr. Chair, I am going to withdraw my motion because the Conservative members are showing bad faith such as we have rarely seen. They are going to engage in systematic obstruction. They will find a way to obstruct either my motion or the bill. I withdraw my motion. If they are going to systematically obstruct the bill, so be it. They are wasting the valuable time of people whom the Canadian people pay to come to work here.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Madam Lavallée.

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

Mr. Chair, I have not said a single word in the last two meetings; I have listened. I have a point of order. For two entire meetings, four hours, I have listened to what the Conservatives have to say. Sadly, I too am forced to conclude that they are wasting our time. They are wasting the time, not only of committee members, who have other things to do, but also of the people around the table. I do not even dare to think how much each hour costs the taxpayers of Canada and Quebec.

I find this very unfortunate and very sad.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

This is debate.

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

Perhaps you think that it is debate, Mr. Chair. Clearly, when I do it, it is debate, but when others do it, it is a point of order.

I am here in good faith. This morning, we had a quorum and we could have required you to start the meeting, Mr. Chair. We did not do that because we are here in good faith and we were hoping that something on the other side was going to change. But it appears that the good faith is on this side of the table only, and I have had it. That is what I wanted to tell you, so there you go!

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

We're going on a little further. You've had your debate.

Mr. Bruinooge had the floor.

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

Point of order, please.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Point of order, Mr. Del Mastro.

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

No, I want to speak to the point of order that Madam Lavallée was just speaking to.

To begin with, I'd like to note for Madam Lavallée that the Conservatives were not the last ones here this morning. I think you know that. So to suggest that we were holding up the meeting.... You know we weren't the last ones here. That's evident.

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

But we had quorum before you arrived. We had quorum.

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

You don't have quorum without any Conservatives here. You have to have representatives of all the parties--

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

There was not quorum at the table?

[The Clerk of the Committee, Mr. Richard Dupuis]

No.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

There was not quorum at the table. All parties have to be represented for there to be quorum. There only needs to be one opposition, but there has to be a government person here.

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

You were here.

[An hon. member]

He doesn't count. He's the chair.