Canadian Heritage Committee on May 6th, 2013

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Moore]

Merci.

Mr. Calandra.

[Paul Calandra, Conservative, Oak Ridges—Markham, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

First off, let me just say that some of the motions that were passed here were passed with the support, I think, of a vast majority of the members of this committee.

Having said that, I think the motion speaks for itself. I know Mr. Simms brought up peacekeeping; the motion does talk about peacekeeping. I think we have committee business scheduled for Wednesday. I would suggest at Wednesday's committee meeting that potential witnesses be brought forward to speak about that, and we can then have a more fulsome debate on who we would like to bring. But the motion does talk about peacekeeping. The motion talks about pre-Confederation. Hopefully, we could talk about our first nations in the context of what happened here before Confederation. It talks about elements after Confederation. It talks about early 20th century, post-20th century.

I know on this side, we're not going to suggest what topics the members want to talk about. We're not here to tell the provinces what they should do. We're not here to interpret history. What we're here to try to do, like we had this morning in the earlier panel, is just get a sense of what resources are available to people to better understand their history. We will talk with our museums, the War Museum and the Museum of Civilization. I know we'd like to bring forward witnesses that included Library and Archives Canada. We would like to bring forward witnesses from other museums. We've talked about hopefully bringing forward CBC. We've talked about bringing forward the National Film Board of Canada. That's something we'll hopefully bring forward for future debate so committee members can discuss, if those are the people they want to hear from. We are not limiting ourselves to who we would talk to.

[Andrew Cash, NDP, Davenport, ON]

I have a point of order.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Moore]

Mr. Cash has a point of order.

[Andrew Cash, NDP, Davenport, ON]

My friend opposite seems to be under the impression that we passed several motions in this committee that have had widespread support among our party and also he seems—

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Moore]

Mr. Cash, it's not a point of order. It's a matter of debate, so the floor is back to Mr. Calandra.

[Paul Calandra, Conservative, Oak Ridges—Markham, ON]

Just by reference to that, I think the study we just finished was the entertainment software study, which was actually Mr. Cash's motion, Mr. Chair.

Anyway, Mr. Chair, not to belabour this, if it would make it easier for the opposition, I would be more than inclined to seek the unanimous support of the committee to remove the first sentence of the study, which says:

A breakdown and comparison of relevant standards and courses of study offered in primary and post-secondary institutions in each of the provinces and territories;

If it would make it easier for the opposition, then we'd be willing to seek unanimous consent, something in the vein of, “Notwithstanding the motion that was passed, we would seek to eliminate the first sentence”, so that we can get on track and get back to doing what we actually get paid to do.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Moore]

Mr. Calandra, you still have the floor, but we do have to deal with the motion of Mr. Nantel before we can deal with your proposal. Mr. Calandra is asking for unanimous consent to remove that first paragraph, but we do have a motion that we're vested with.

Is there anything else, Mr. Calandra?

[Paul Calandra, Conservative, Oak Ridges—Markham, ON]

I would make a friendly amendment to Mr. Nantel's motion. I don't know if it would be considered friendly, but it would be a big one. That is that we remove pretty much all of the wording of his motion, and it be replaced with all of the wording of our motion, with the exception of removing the sentence that I referenced earlier.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Moore]

I think we have to deal with Mr. Nantel's motion.

[Paul Calandra, Conservative, Oak Ridges—Markham, ON]

Sorry, I'm proposing an amendment to his motion.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Moore]

That would basically change the whole spirit of the motion. Amendments to motions are fine, but that might go a little beyond what we can do.

Are you done, Mr. Calandra?

[Paul Calandra, Conservative, Oak Ridges—Markham, ON]

I am, yes.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Moore]

Mr. Simms.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

With a friendly amendment like that, our Parliament would probably look more like the Ukraine.

I would start by saying this, and I'll try to make this very quick because I want to get to a vote. In the beginning when this was first brought up I didn't see merit whereas I have seen it over the last few days. I see this in some of the testimony we heard today and the potential testimony of the future.

I like the idea that the wording can be changed at the beginning if it takes away contentious issues. By way of example, when I go around and speak to health people—whether they're nurses, doctors, executives on hospital boards—a lot of these people cite the Kirby report, which was done in the Senate. The Kirby report was not something that was to force its way into provincial jurisdiction. It was something they use as a point of reference for all jurisdictions.

As I said before, there are no provincial equivalents per se to Heritage, maybe tourism and maybe some in Quebec.

It's hard for me to say right now whether we should halt this because it's provincial jurisdiction until we see what it is we're looking at by way of witnesses. Now granted my motion was not successful earlier, so as far as witnesses go, we're not off to a good start, in my opinion. However, I'm patient. I'm willing to see what is out there.... I hope we'll change our minds on that particular motion because I see there is merit in that, plus other issues.

Folks, first nations are not here. It's a huge one and I think there are other elements. If we are open to adding elements of our Canadian history that are not mentioned or that don't even resemble it, we should be open to seeing that. When the report comes out, then we make sure it's not prescriptive in nature or doesn't interfere in provincial jurisdictions. It should be one that is an information piece.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Moore]

Okay.

Mr. Calandra, you may speak to Mr. Nantel's motion.

[Paul Calandra, Conservative, Oak Ridges—Markham, ON]

This would be a clarification. The list isn't meant to be prescriptive, as in that's all we will talk about.

On another point of clarification, we have committee business scheduled for Wednesday. What is the purpose of that?

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Moore]

In the second hour on Wednesday we can discuss committee business. We can discuss motions. We can discuss witnesses.

[Paul Calandra, Conservative, Oak Ridges—Markham, ON]

Presumably we can bring witnesses. Okay, that's what I thought.

As I said, Mr. Chair, the list isn't meant to be prescriptive. If that were the case, then discussing pre-Confederation could take on anything. It could be our first nations; it could be anything. Just because someone isn't mentioned here.... I'm sure some of my Italian uncles would like me to talk about the history of immigration to Canada. I'd maybe like to have the chairperson of Pier 21 here.

It's not meant to be a list of the only things we're studying and that's the end of it, Mr. Chair. I think I made that pretty clear, but if I didn't then I apologize and perhaps if members.... But I think that gets fleshed out a little bit with the witnesses members decide to bring forward, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Moore]

Thank you, Mr. Calandra.

Number one, as chair I have to say that we do have an hour scheduled on Wednesday for committee business, where it's appropriate to discuss motions, witnesses, or whatever. Now our speakers' list is growing again, so at this point I'm going to dismiss our two witnesses.

I'm sure you're not that interested in the workings of our committee. We do appreciate your testimony. If there is anything else you want to send to us on this, you're welcome to. We were able to ask some questions.

I'll dismiss you at this point, and we will go back to our speakers' list.

Thank you for your appearance here.

Mr. Nantel.

[Pierre Nantel, NDP, Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher, QC]

First of all, I think we are going to have to vote on the motion that we presented today.

I would like to point out that if a proposal is being made to amend the original motion, let's not kid ourselves that all this will be settled. We agree that the studies proposed are problematic. We also agree that the question of provincial and municipal jurisdictions pose a problem. We further agree that, as my colleague Ms. Boutin-Sweet mentioned, the lack of limits on this study presents a problem.

There needs to be a deadline and a certain number of meetings dedicated to this study before we can consider the question. That is my point and my opinion. However, I think we need to vote on the motion that we have just presented.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Moore]

Madame Boutin-Sweet.

[Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet, NDP, Hochelaga, QC]

I fully agree with my colleague.

In fact, a number of topics were mentioned. It has been pointed out that the history of Canada is a very broad subject. How much time will we dedicate to this study? Do we really want to spend all this time on this study? Or do we want to divide it up and work on sections of it from time to time?

There are many other subjects that we could study other than this one. We spent month after month on this study of Canada's 150th anniversary. Are we going to do the same thing again instead of studying other subjects that are so important to the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage?

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Moore]

Okay. That is it for our speakers' list.

We have the motion in front of us. We are going to vote on it at this point. Those in favour of the motion of Mr. Nantel—

[A voice]

Can we have a recorded vote?