Bill C-11 Committee on Feb. 14th, 2012
Evidence of meeting #1 for Bill C-11 in the 41st Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was going.
A recording is available from Parliament.
On the agenda
MPs speaking
Also speaking
- Clerk of the Committee Ms. Christine Holke David
3:50 p.m.
NDP
Pierre Dionne Labelle Rivière-du-Nord, QC
We are talking about work pace. I want to know whether this pace would allow us to invite new witnesses or witnesses I did not have the opportunity to hear from but would like to. I think that if we take such a systematic approach, we will not have enough time to hear from witnesses.
3:50 p.m.
NDP
The Chair Glenn Thibeault
We need to suspend for one moment, as I have no translation. We just have to get that fixed and then we'll go from there.
I can hear it now. Fantastic.
I'm sure what you said, Mr. Labelle, was fantastic, but would you mind repeating it?
3:50 p.m.
NDP
Pierre Dionne Labelle Rivière-du-Nord, QC
I am looking at the proposed schedule and I don't think it leaves much time for witnesses. That is every day. I get the sense there is a desire to move quickly here. This is an important bill, and we want to be able to hear from witnesses again. I was not on the committee. There are witnesses I want to hear from, and I don't think this leaves enough time to bring them before the committee.
3:50 p.m.
NDP
3:50 p.m.
NDP
Charlie Angus Timmins—James Bay, ON
Thank you.
I'd like to move an amendment that we meet from 8:45 to 10:45 on Tuesdays and Thursdays. That way we're not interfering with the work of other committees and the work of other studies.
3:50 p.m.
NDP
3:50 p.m.
NDP
3:55 p.m.
NDP
The Chair Glenn Thibeault
We'll open up discussion on the amendment. Does anyone have anything to discuss?
I will then call the question on the amendment. We would just change the Tuesdays and the Thursdays, if I am correct, from 8:45 a.m. to 10:45 a.m.
(Amendment negatived)
We're back to the original motion.
Is there any further discussion?
Go ahead, Monsieur Nantel.
February 14th, 2012 / 3:55 p.m.
NDP
Pierre Nantel Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher, QC
I am also very concerned. I think we are off to a pretty rigid start. We are being told this is how it's going to work, period. I, too, would like the opportunity to hear from as many witnesses as possible. Throwing this at us right off the bat shows a lack of regard.
I would also like to know whether our schedule is jampacked for just a week. How many weeks are there in the agenda of our neighbours across the way?
3:55 p.m.
Conservative
3:55 p.m.
NDP
3:55 p.m.
Conservative
Mike Lake Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB
Can I just get some clarification?
I believe there are five members of the NDP here right now, but I believe they only have four members on the committee. It seems as though there's a filibuster attempt beginning here, and it may be a little bit of a challenge having five members on the committee right now. Maybe we could identify the four members from the NDP sitting on the committee.
3:55 p.m.
NDP
Charlie Angus Timmins—James Bay, ON
We're going to have five, and we'll vary the voting, depending on who is going to be on the issue. Today we'll go with the first four. How's that?
3:55 p.m.
NDP
3:55 p.m.
NDP