Debates of Oct. 23rd, 2006

Aboriginal Affairs

[Jim Prentice, Conservative, Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and Federal Interlocutor for Métis and Non-Status Indians]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for his hard work and his fine question.

Canada's new government is showing up and is making a real difference. Within 45 days of forming the government, we set up drinking water standards on par with the rest of the country. We have taken steps for first nations to assume meaningful control of their education system. We are retooling the land claims process and the backlog left behind by the former government. We set aside $3.7 billion in the budget, not in a press release, but real money. We have taken steps to approve the Indian residential schools settlement agreement, have launched advanced interim payments, and I could go on and on.

Minister of Public Works and Government Services

[Jean Lapierre, Liberal, Outremont, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister for Democratic Reform.

I want to ask him whether he can explain why the Minister of Public Works and Government Services is not here in this House today and will not be here tomorrow or the day after.

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform]

Mr. Speaker--

[An hon. member]

You'll have to wait until the next general election.

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

That is right Mr. Speaker, you will be seeing the minister certainly after the next general election. I know the member will be awfully sorry about that.

I should point out to the hon. member that his political party has called byelections in the middle of leadership contests. It has done it whenever it thought it was appropriate.

With respect to the minister, he has indicated that he will run in the next general election. However, in the meantime, he is doing a beautiful job on behalf of the people of Montreal, Quebec and Canada.

Foreign Affairs

[Diane Bourgeois, Bloc, Terrebonne—Blainville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, last week, an unacceptable incident occurred: Tibetan refugees who were trying to enter Nepal in order to get an education in the Tibetan language—something they cannot do in Tibet, which is currently under Chinese administration—were shot at by the Chinese army.

What concrete action does the Canadian government plan to take to denounce this violation of human rights?

[Deepak Obhrai, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, as the foreign affairs minister said last week, we have condemned this violation of fundamental human rights and have asked that an independent investigation be undertaken. We understand that is now under way.

Canadian Heritage

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

Mr. Speaker, The Globe and Mail is reporting that the PMO has instructed our diplomats not to use the word “culture”. Instead, they have been given the bizarre instructions to use the phrase “acts of public diplomacy”.

Culture is a multi-billion dollar a year business in films, books and magazines. What we have instead of a champion for industry, these are being erased from their ideological dictionary.

First there was the word “Kyoto”, then it was the word “equality”, and now it is the word “culture”. I would like to ask the minister for public diplomacy what it is about these words that gives her government the heebie-jeebies.

[Bev Oda, Conservative, Minister of Canadian Heritage and Status of Women]

Mr. Speaker, we have committed to Canadian culture. In fact, we did it in our first budget with $50 million for the Canada Council. That is a real action. As far as public diplomacy, last year we committed through the Canada Council over $800,000 for touring and that was before the new $50 million.

Canadian Wheat Board

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Wascana, SK]

Mr. Speaker, last week in the other place, in response to a series of questions from a series of senators, the Leader of the Government in the Senate held open the possibility that there would indeed be a democratic plebiscite among farmers having to do with the future of the Canadian Wheat Board.

I wonder if the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food could today formally confirm, and emphatically so, that if the Canadian Wheat Board is to be changed, farmers will have the democratic right to vote on it in advance.

[Chuck Strahl, Conservative, Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food and Minister for the Canadian Wheat Board]

Mr. Speaker, we have put together a task force to frame what kind of a Wheat Board we could have and of a strong, independent, voluntary Wheat Board in a marketing choice world. That task force should report to me hopefully later this week or next week at the latest. When that task force comes back, we will look at the suggestions that it makes and take whatever steps are necessary following that task force report.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

Order, please. I just want to point out that we had four extra questions in this question period. That is a record for this Parliament. I congratulate hon. members on their quietness during question period. It has obviously helped.

Presence in Gallery

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

I would like to draw to the attention of hon. members the presence in the gallery of the participants in the 14th Canada-Mexico Interparliamentary Meeting led by Senator Santiago Creel Miranda.

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear!

Canada's Clean Air Act

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform]

Mr. Speaker, I gave notice to the Chair of this point of order. I would like to take a moment to respond to the question of privilege raised by the member for Mississauga South on October 19, 2006. The hon. member alleged that the government was in contempt of the House due to the premature disclosure of Bill C-30, Canada's clean air act.

After reviewing the document that the hon. member provided to support his argument, it is clear that the document provided by the hon. member is not the bill introduced by the government on October 19. I will give the House a number of examples.

The title of Bill C-30 is “An Act to amend the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, the Energy Efficiency Act and the Motor Vehicle Fuel Consumption Standards Act (Canada's Clean Air Act)”, whereas the title of the document provided by the member for Mississauga South is “An Act to amend the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999 to add provisions providing for clean air”.

Consistent with the title, Bill C-30 consists of three parts: amendments to the Canadian Environmental Protection Act; amendments to the Energy Efficiency Act; and amendments to the Motor Vehicle Fuel Consumption Act. The document provided by the member for Mississauga South only refers to amendments to the Canadian Environmental Protection Act.

Not only do we have documents that have a different title and would be dealing with different pieces of legislation, but there are numerous other differences between Bill C-30 and the document provided by the member for Mississauga South with respect to the amendments to the Canadian Environmental Protection Act.

For example, Bill C-30 includes amendments to sections 72, 93, 95 and 98 of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act that are not referenced in the document provided by the member for Mississauga South.

In short, the document provided by the member for Mississauga South is simply a different document than Bill C-30 and it is not a document that the government ever intended to introduce in Parliament. I therefore submit that no contempt or breach of privilege exists.

However, there is more.

Members of the House may recall the Speaker's rulings of March 19, 2001 and October 15, 2001 when you ruled that there were prima facie contempts of the House when the Liberal minister of justice at the time and her officials briefed the media on the details of bills prior to the bills being introduced in Parliament. In those instances, the improper disclosure of information was in relation to bills that the government at the time intended to introduce.

Mr. Speaker, in your ruling of March 19, 2001, you stated:

In preparing legislation, the government may wish to hold extensive consultations and such consultations may be held entirely at the government's discretion. However, with respect to material to be placed before parliament, the House must take precedence. Once a bill has been placed on notice, whether it has been presented in a different form to a different session of parliament has no bearing and the bill is considered a new matter. The convention of the confidentiality of bills on notice is necessary, not only so that members themselves may be well informed, but also because of the pre-eminent rule which the House plays and must play in the legislative affairs of the nation.

The previous findings of contempt in relation to the premature disclosure of government legislation concerned the disclosure of legislation that was put on the notice paper and intended to be introduced into Parliament. Here, there are no suggestions that the document provided by the member for Mississauga South was put on the notice paper and, indeed, it was never intended to be introduced in this House.

Therefore, I respectfully submit, Mr. Speaker, that there is no contempt of the House and I look forward to your ruling.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, you will know that the tabling of this document was delayed by two days, specifically, I believe, to make some changes. For instance, there is a new preamble that was not in that document. It is very clear that the representations made to the Sierra Club and other environmental groups was that this was the substantive provisions of the legislation to be tabled as the Canada clean air act.

Mr. Speaker, if you will have officials look at the documents, they will see that although the member has mentioned a number of titles and other incidentals, the fundamental or substantive points of the legislation that have been discussed in this place and in the media are identical to the document that was publicly circulated on Friday, October 13.

I never represented to this place that this was the identical piece of legislation. I had no way of knowing that until the legislation was tabled. The representations that had been made and the subsequent review of that show that the document I provided to you, Mr. Speaker, has substantively the same critical provisions of the clean air act that were publicly circulated on October 13.

I therefore submit, Mr. Speaker, although it is not the identical document, and I never expected it would be, that the substantive provisions were leaked to the public prior to the tabling in Parliament.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

I thank the hon. government House leader and the hon. member for Mississauga South for their further submissions on this matter. I will take them into consideration in the course of my review of the facts and in the preparation of the ruling that I will be delivering to the House on this issue in due course.

Public Safety and National Security

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax—Pickering, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it gives me pleasure to present, in both official languages, the second report of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security.

This is the second report of the committee making recommendations that the Government of Canada issue a formal apology to Maher Arar and his family, and to negotiate compensation and other such related matters.

[Gord Brown, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the third report of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security.

This would be the interim report of the subcommittee reviewing the Anti-terrorism Act. It specifically deals with investigative hearings and recognizance with conditions.

Older Adult Justice Act

[Lloyd St. Amand, Liberal, Brant, ON]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-360, An Act to establish the Office of the Ombudsman for Older Adult Justice and the Canadian Older Adult Justice Agency and to amend the Criminal Code.

Mr. Speaker, the bill is intended to protect Canada's older or oldest citizens from physical, psychological and financial harm.

The bill would establish the office of the ombudsman for older adult justice as well as the Canadian older adult justice agency. As indicated, it would also amend the Criminal Code.

The office of the ombudsman would promote the protection of seniors' rights, investigate complaints and refer certain matters to the Minister of Justice.

The older adult justice agency would provide resources, protecting seniors, including information on preventing and detecting abuse, and the treatment of seniors' abuse, neglect and exploitation.

It is my view that the bill is long overdue. It will, if adopted, increase the awareness among all Canadians that elder abuse is a significant problem that impacts the life of many older adults across Canada.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

Canadian Heritage

[Maka Kotto, Bloc, Saint-Lambert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I move that the seventh report of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, presented on Thursday, October 5, 2006, be concurred in.

I am grateful for this opportunity to propose to all hon. members in this House that the seventh report of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage be concurred in.

This report reflects a motion adopted by the committee on October 4. The motion reads as follows:

That, pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage recommend that the government maintain the Museums Assistance Program (MAP) at the same level as in fiscal year 2005-2006, that a new museum policy be established, and that the Chair report the adoption of this motion to the House as soon as possible.

I should point out here that this motion was not unanimously passed by the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage. However, it was supported by a clear majority of members who are worried about the damage done by those who are killing Canadian and Quebec cultures.

On April 10, following the throne speech, which was unacceptably silent on culture, I expressed in this House the concerns that were emerging in Quebec and Canada's cultural sector.

I remember saying that many people are concerned about the future of culture in Quebec and in Canada under a Conservative government, and that some even believe that the term “culture” is not part of the Conservative vocabulary owing to the absence of any significant vision for culture in the throne speech.

I remember telling this government about the importance of culture, explaining that culture is what enables humankind to create a framework for itself and for its development. It helps us to think for ourselves. It enables us to understand the world and to contribute to changing it for the better.

I remember telling this government that, in Quebec, many of us believe that culture is key to having a sense of belonging to a community. It represents the essential fibre of the Quebec people; it influences its thoughts, words, actions and daily life, and it enables the development of individual members of that community. For Quebec culture, this reality is intertwined with the exceptional need to affirm itself and to encourage the expression of its uniqueness in North America.

I remember saying that the silence on the issue of culture leads us to anticipate a slow death of culture by destruction of the arts, artists, the next generation in Quebec, of Quebec's identity, by the liquidation of our cultural sovereignty. I remember saying that this destruction will strike a major blow to Quebec's humanist and progressive culture.

I also remember asking questions. Would the silence concerning culture in the Speech from the Throne be hiding rather the temptation of a massive intrusion by the private sector, with its alienating financial power, into arts and culture? Are we headed towards U.S.-style homogenization and will we eventually undergo the unilateral, impoverishing ideological marking of content in the publishing media? Are we going to witness the accelerated deterioration of our public television and radio services, followed fatally by privatizations and moronic ratings races to sell available brain time to consumerism?

I remember asking the government, on April 10, are we going to witness the dismantling of the museums? The answer to all these questions, and in particular that about Canadian and Quebec museums, was brutal: $4.6 million was hacked from museum budgets.

Museums are vital institutions in communities throughout Quebec and Canada. There are just over 2,000 exhibit spaces in Canada and, of those, more than 400 are in Quebec. We must consider that 40% of these spaces are considered seasonal. Also, exhibit spaces are divided into three types of space: museums, exhibition centres and interpretation centres.

Museums are not only cultural centres but also centres where the arts, history and science are displayed and interpreted.

Quebec and Canadian museums welcome 59 million visitors annually. They receive support from over 400,000 members and 55,000 volunteers.

Quebec museums alone, on average, welcome between 12 million and 13 million of these 59 million visitors annually and employ some 6,000 professionals and employees.

Museums bring citizens together and exhibit our achievements both here and abroad. Museums preserve our history, our art and our scientific and cultural achievements. They are places of learning, for teaching our children, adults and families; they play a major role in building collective identities and in social integration.

The Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage and the Standing Committee on Finance have presented successive recommendations to previous governments and the current government in favour of new investment in museums. The urgency of having a federal museum policy is supported by the current Government of Quebec, by the provinces and territories of Canada, by the tourist industry, the cities, municipalities and several other entities.

In light of this data, the Canadian Museums Association and the Société des musées québécois recently called on the Government of Canada to immediately honour the election promise by the Conservative Party of Canada to implement a new Canadian museum policy with multi-year funding for museums across Canada as soon as possible. And they were absolutely right to remind the Conservative government of the promises it made during the last election campaign.

It is in black and white. Wisdom guides us. On December 16, 2005, the Conservatives made clear promises that are well illustrated in the questionnaire and responses I will read to you.

Question 1 states:

Does the Conservative Party of Canada support the development of a new Canadian Museums Policy to replace the current policy that dates back to 1972?

Here is the Conservatives' response:

Yes, the Conservative Party of Canada supports the development of a new museums policy for Canada. Canadians want to see the country's rich heritage protected and preserved for this generation and for future generations. It is not acceptable that this policy has not been updated and that Canadian museums have been neglected by the federal Liberal government. A Conservative government looks forward to working with the Canadian Museums Association to develop a revitalized and renewed vision for Canada's museums.

Question 2 read as follows:

Does the Conservative Party support the CMA's principal objectives for a new policy:

a. preserve Canada's national heritage, including artifacts of key importance held in museums across Canada;

b. support museums in their role as important economic engines in the revitalization of cities and communities;

c. increase engagement of citizens, visitors, volunteers, and members by greater outreach to community groups and the general public; and

d. stabilize the capacity of museums to achieve these objectives through multi-year funding, endowment programs, tax incentives, and so on.

The Conservatives answered as follows:

Yes, the Conservative Party of Canada supports these objectives. A Conservative government would look forward to discussing these policy objectives with the Canadian Museums Association and to developing a new policy for Canada's museums which allows us to fully realize these objectives.

Question 3 asked:

Does the Conservative party support the investment of $75 million per year, as recommended by the CMA, in sustained, multi-year, predictable programs, to meet these policy goals?

The Conservative Party answered, and I quote:

As was confirmed at our policy convention last spring, the Conservative Party of Canada affirms the federal government's role in the preservation of Canada's natural and historical heritage (such as national parks, museums and historic sites) for the benefit and enjoyment of all and as an enduring reminder to all Canadians of our common inheritance. The Conservative Party of Canada supports stable, long term funding—

And I stress the words:

stable, long term funding for Canada's museums.

And they continued:

We believe that continuity of programming is important and can only be achieved through stable, predictable funding. Canada's museums conduct the valuable work of educating Canadians about their nation's rich history through their conservation and preservation efforts.

This is still the Conservatives speaking.

Canadians are avid visitors to our museums and enjoy viewing museum exhibitions and collections, but many do not recognize that the “behind the scenes” work of conservation and collections management is expensive and labour-intensive. Canada's museums make this look effortless—

How compassionate. It continued:

—but are increasingly strained by a lack of funding.

This is the Conservatives speaking.

Although we would need to see a definitive plan before making a specific funding commitment, please be assured that generous funding for Canada's museums would be a priority for a Conservative government.

How cynical.

Big words. Big mouths. Easier said than done. A hundred rejections hurt less than one broken promise, wisdom teaches.

In reality, the answer of the Conservatives, these culture poachers and vultures, is a brutal one: a $4.6 million slash in the museums assistance program.

Last October 4, the Société des musées québécois passed resolutions at its annual general meeting in the Saguenay region asking the Conservative government to keep its election promise and adopt a new museum policy as soon as possible along with funding to provide multi-year support for museums. They also asked the Conservatives, as the Bloc Québécois has been doing, to revoke their decision to cut the budget of the museums assistance program until a new museums policy has been adopted.

The $4.6 million in budget cuts announced over the next two years amount to one-quarter of the funding currently provided under MAP. If the 50% in budget cuts over the last 10 years is added to that, for the Canadian heritage minister to announce these reductions is totally incomprehensible, especially when the federal government is telling us that it is running a $13 billion surplus.

This situation is all the more paradoxical in view of the fact that the Conservative government is campaigning to have the convention on cultural diversity ratified by as many countries as possible and this convention requires the signatories to ensure a fair income for their artists so that they can make their voices and works felt on the national and international scenes. Ultimately, the Conservative government is making a decision that undercuts this convention and shows no consideration for the difficult situation facing artists and producers who show their works.

This is extremely disturbing news for the Regroupement des artistes en arts visuels du Québec, which is trying to persuade Canadian museum directors to pay visual artists more for their exhibition and reproduction rights—these people, whose average annual income is about $3,500, will be the first to suffer from Ottawa’s decision—but also for all Quebec museums, which suffer from chronic under-funding. Cutting the rations of museums is no way for this government to contribute to the development of the cultural and artistic forces in Quebec and Canada.

While elsewhere in the western world museums are doing tremendously well thanks, in part, to substantial government financial support, museums in Quebec and Canada have been suffering from chronic under-funding for nearly a quarter of a century now and are growing ever weaker.

Allow me to share some reactions to these cuts. In a press release, the Société des musées québécois denounces the cuts made by the Government of Canada.

Montreal, September 26, 2006

The Société des musées québécois was dismayed to learn late yesterday that the Minister of Canadian Heritage was cutting the budgets of some of her department's programs. These cuts are devastating to museums, because the only Canadian Heritage program dedicated exclusively to museums will be reduced by roughly $4.6 million over two years. In fact, these cuts represent a 25% decrease in the already inadequate museums assistance program (MAP) envelope.

According to Guy Vadeboncoeur, president of the SMQ, “this is extremely disturbing news for museums in Quebec, which have suffered from underfunding for several years already”. The museum community is especially surprised at these cuts because last week, the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage tabled a report and a recommendation in favour of a new museum policy for Canada.

The situation is also paradoxical, because these cuts affect the mounting and circulation of numerous art, history and science exhibits. Recently, consultations had been held to examine MAP's parameters. They showed the strategic importance of this program and underscored the inadequacy of the program envelope—

Here is the reaction to the cuts to the MAP from the Canadian Museums Association, which was in shock.

Ottawa, September 25, 2006

Late this afternoon, the Minister of Canadian Heritage, Hon Bev Oda, announced a series of cuts to her department. In particular we are alarmed that the Museums Assistance Programs has been selected for a $4.6 million cut. MAP is the one program that is dedicated solely to museums.

We are shocked, puzzled and feel betrayed by these cuts—

Quebec and Canada are on the same wavelength on this.

I will conclude with the reaction of the Quebec minister of culture and communications, Ms. Beauchamp. The headline of the article that appeared in the Journal de Montreal on September 29, 2006, read:

MINISTER BEAUCHAMP IS WORRIED

Ottawa announces $4.6 million in cuts to museums.

In a press release yesterday, the Quebec minister of culture and communications, Line Beauchamp, expressed her concern following the federal government's decision to cut $4.6 million from its museums assistance program...For Quebec museums, this could mean a shortfall of over $500,000 annually.

The Quebec minister of culture and communications said:

I am surprised by the federal government's decision to slash the museum assistance program, while considerable effort is being made in Toronto to bring together tourism and culture...Museums are a main component of tourism products across the country.

Later, the article went on:

According to Minister Beauchamp, the federal government's cuts only undermine Quebec's ongoing efforts to strengthen its museum network.

In light of all my arguments, my proposal to adopt the seventh report of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage represents a simple gesture inspired by the desire to protect our museums. We must, absolutely, resist this civilized-seeming barbarity.

[Michael Chong, Conservative, President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada]

Mr. Speaker, I have a clarification for the hon. member from the Bloc Québécois.

Our government is spending $240 million per year on museums. We recovered $2.3 million in savings out of the museums program. This represents less than 1% of annual expenditures.

I would liken that to the situation of a Quebec family with an annual budget of $20,000, which recovers $100 a year in savings.

There is, however, something more important that the Bloc member failed to mention. This government has increased the budget of the Canada Council for the Arts by $20 million this year, and another $30 million increase is planned for next year. This is much more money than the member was talking about. I would like to hear him on that.

[Maka Kotto, Bloc, Saint-Lambert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, first, concerning the budget of the Canada Council for the Arts, it must be remembered that, for years in this House, the Bloc Québécois and other parties, such as the NDP, have urged that the budget of $151 million be doubled in order to provide artists, creators and artisans with a decent living. When we see an addition of $20,000 one year and $30,000 the next year, I have to laugh. We are far from the results that the museum community expected.

There are a great many creative people in this country, who, out of frustration due to the denial of their applications, give up their essential passion. The cultural situation outside Quebec may be different. I say different because in Quebec, as I have said previously, culture is essential to the survival of the Quebec identity. The more creative people who are at work, the more artisans and artists there are, the greater is the hope for the long-term survival of our culture and history, because it is through culture that one makes one's mark on history and reaches people's hearts.

I return to the savings that were made in the museums assistance program (MAP). I am astounded that any savings would be made in this program because it is a residual amount that has gone back into the public treasury every year. But let us be clear on this subject. We need to put several factors into perspective. When an application is submitted, there is a delay in the response. Projects have to be carried out within a fiscal year, between April 1 and March 31. If a project goes beyond March 31, it is turned down. Some projects, even after approval, have to be abandoned before they can be carried out because people are desperately waiting for a cheque that never comes.

The government is very much aware of this Machiavellian ambiguity—let us call it that—and plays the game marvellously. Without imputing motives, it practices financial retention in a calculated manner. It should be known that the museum assistance program is divided into three components: access and exhibition, aboriginal heritage and organizational development.

Under this program, the minister decides at his or her—in this case her—own discretion, in accordance with utterly obscure criteria, what portion of the budget will be allocated to each of the program components, in a proportion that is unknown to the museums, even though applications are made every year. Only departmental officials know the percentages, and they are not allowed to disclose them.

Let us suppose that the minister, with her discretionary power, were to decide to favour the aboriginal component by providing $6 million from an $11 million budget. The other two components would share the remaining $5 million. Suppose that the aboriginal component only submitted one eligible project worth $20,000; that would leave $5 million and change that would never be spent under the program.

It is impossible for officials to transfer unspent monies from one component to another. The minister's directive is in force for the whole year unless she decides to change it along the way. That is the reality. Figures are juggled when it suits the government that wants to save money on the backs of the most vulnerable and on the backs of the ambassadors of our identity.

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

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague has been a strong fighter for cultural issues in the House. We have sat together in the heritage committee, in which the issues of museums have been discussed for a number of years. It is my very clear understanding that the work on the issues toward new museum policy has been done, as has the input into it.

The fig leaf of credibility that the government hides behind is the fact it will take the money out of the budget that helps all small museums, but it will create a new policy. My sense is we already have what we need for a new policy.

Does my hon. colleague feel that we need to begin a whole new round of discussions that will draw out a conclusion long enough that the government will come back after another election and start over again? Do we or do we not have what we need now to bring forth a museums policy?

[Maka Kotto, Bloc, Saint-Lambert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we work very closely in committee because we have the same interest in culture. The Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage recently heard from representatives of the Canadian Museums Association and other interested individuals who stated that, in the last Parliament, a tremendous amount of work went into developing a new museum policy.

The information is there. It is just a matter of taking it, organizing it and introducing a bill that would outline a new museum policy. It is ridiculous that, at the beginning of this Parliament, we were made to drop this urgent debate and to start over with the museum exercise, to once again question those in charge, managers, curators and everyone involved just to waste time. Allow me to say it: to waste time.

I will confirm what my colleague said: there is enough material today, collecting dust on the shelves, that could be used—were the government to show its goodwill—to serve as a basis for a new museum policy.