Evidence of meeting #1 for Canadian Heritage in the 41st Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was angus.
A recording is available from Parliament.
11:10 a.m.
Conservative
11:10 a.m.
Conservative
Scott Armstrong Conservative Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley, NS
One of the advantages of having the extra Conservative member is if there were a question in the subcommittee, we wouldn't waste time bringing it back to the main committee, where the majority of members would probably pass it anyway. It would allow us to move more quickly and when we're in committee focus on what the committee is supposed to be doing, which is in the best interest of Canadians, instead of going back and forth on things we can't decide in a subcommittee where it could be tied on the votes.
11:10 a.m.
NDP
Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON
I've been sitting on this committee for seven years, through various governments and various makeups of this committee. This is one committee that has worked together extremely well. We have come here with our various political points of view to ensure that the issue of Canada's cultural development, our cultural sovereignty is first and foremost.
It would send a disturbing signal in the beginning to be thinking there's a need to start stacking subcommittees, when in the past--and I'm sure my colleagues who've sat on this committee would agree--we have always managed to find common ground, and when common ground has not been found, it's on the fair vote of committee. I would ask my colleagues to extend a branch of conciliation at this point and say that we should go with standard practice and not try to stack the deck.
11:10 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Rob Moore
Thank you, Mr. Angus.
You've put forward a motion with that wording. Is it the will of the committee to adopt that motion?
(Motion agreed to) [See Minutes of Proceedings]
The next routine motion is on meeting without a quorum: that the chair be authorized to hold meetings and to receive and publish evidence when a quorum is not present, provided that at least three members are present, including one member of the opposition.
Is there any discussion on that motion?
Mr. Calandra.
11:10 a.m.
Conservative
Paul Calandra Conservative Oak Ridges—Markham, ON
We have a bit of a change. I'll read it:
That the chair be authorized to hold meetings to receive evidence and to have that evidence printed when a quorum is not present, provided that at least four members are present, including one member from the government and one member of the opposition. In the case of previously scheduled meetings taking place outside of the parliamentary precinct, the committee members in attendance shall only be required to wait for 15 minutes following the designated start of the meeting before they may proceed to hear witnesses and receive evidence, regardless of whether opposition or government members are present.
11:10 a.m.
Conservative
11:15 a.m.
NDP
Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON
Wow, we're really getting off to a start here, aren't we. We're going to try to treat the heritage committee as though it is one of the more contentious committees. We certainly think that this is heavy-handed, extremely unnecessary, and I'd say, frankly bizarre.
With what we've seen from the last vote, I would put it to my colleagues to vote. This is very unnecessary, and it would certainly be an attempt to ram through legislation at times or ram through evidence without giving people proper warning. That certainly sends a wrong signal.
If we're going to work on this committee, and we're going to make this committee work, we have to find some common ground. If we're not going to be finding common ground, then we'll certainly be in a much more combative atmosphere. And I think it wouldn't be in the interests of what this committee has done and what this committee has stood for and the kind of excellent work this committee has done in the last seven years. You would find this committee probably the most productive of the committees that have sat, because year after year we've produced good reports based on the sense that we were going to try to work somewhat as a team.
I think this is an unnecessary motion, and I think it's a rather provocative motion.
11:15 a.m.
NDP
Tyrone Benskin NDP Jeanne-Le Ber, QC
I'd just like to ask a question. Why feel the need to change from common practice if it has allowed this committee to do the work? Obviously I'm new to this committee, though I have presented in front of this committee before. If past practice has allowed this committee to do the work as a committee of the whole, why is this necessary?
11:15 a.m.
Conservative
Paul Calandra Conservative Oak Ridges—Markham, ON
The wording of the motion seeks to guarantee that a member of the government and a member of the opposition.... It outlines the fact that when presenting evidence, we have to have, even in a reduced quorum, a member of the government and a member of the opposition before we can do that. I am not entirely certain why ensuring that there is representation from both sides would be seen as provocative.
11:15 a.m.
Liberal
Scott Simms Liberal Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL
For the record, yes, it is somewhat provocative. I'm trying to figure out the origin of this. But anyway, that's fine.
When the honourable member says “opposition”, is he talking about one entity or two? Because we are two entities. I would like to see both opposition parties present at that time, respectfully, of course.
11:15 a.m.
Conservative
Paul Calandra Conservative Oak Ridges—Markham, ON
The motion speaks directly to the opposition and not to a party.
11:15 a.m.
NDP
Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON
I'd like him to read the section about the 15-minute notice for witnesses and explain why that would be necessary if we were doing this without quorum.
11:15 a.m.
Conservative
Paul Calandra Conservative Oak Ridges—Markham, ON
I'm sorry. I'll read it again.
In the case of previously scheduled meetings taking place outside of the parliamentary precinct, the committee members in attendance shall only be required to wait for 15 minutes following the designated start of the meeting before they may proceed to hear witnesses and receive evidence, regardless of whether opposition or government members are present.
Those are committee meetings that are off-site.
11:15 a.m.
Conservative
Scott Armstrong Conservative Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley, NS
That's if not everybody shows up.
11:15 a.m.
Conservative
Paul Calandra Conservative Oak Ridges—Markham, ON
That's the idea. So if we're off-site, the committee is not held waiting and the witnesses aren't held waiting while either government members or opposition members get to the hearing. We can start hearing evidence and get on with doing what we've travelled to do.
11:15 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Rob Moore
I think what I'm hearing is that it would be if we were travelling....
11:15 a.m.
Conservative
11:15 a.m.
NDP
Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON
It would certainly be a bizarre situation that we spent the taxpayers' money to fly to Edmonton and then nobody showed up. I don't think that's ever happened on any committee I've ever been aware of. The motion seems to be a little contradictory. In the first place, it says we can have a reduced quorum with one member of the opposition, and then it says we can hear witnesses without any members of the opposition present. If we want to get this through, we would say that we'll wait 15 minutes provided there's at least a member of the government and a member of the opposition. That would certainly establish that this is about us getting down to the business of hearing our witnesses. If people haven't bothered to show up, that's something they have to be held accountable for on their own. But if we just say a member of the government and a member of the opposition, then we're fine with that.