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.
11:05 a.m.
The Clerk of the Committee Ms. Christine Holke David
Honourable members of the committee, I see a quorum.
I must inform members that the clerk of the committee can only receive motions for the election of the chair. The clerk cannot receive other types of motions, entertain points of order, or participate in debate.
We can now proceed to the election of the chair.
Pursuant to Standing Order 106(2), the chair must be a member of the government party. I am ready to receive motions for the chair.
Mr. Angus.
11:05 a.m.
The Clerk
It has been moved by Mr. Angus that Mr. Moore be elected chair of the committee.
Are there any further motions?
Is the pleasure of the committee to adopt the motion?
(Motion agreed to)
I declare the motion carried and Mr. Moore duly elected chair of the committee.
11:05 a.m.
Some hon. members
Hear, hear!
11:05 a.m.
The Clerk
Before I invite Mr. Moore to take the chair, if the committee wishes, we will move to the election of the vice-chairs.
Pursuant to Standing Order 106(2), the first vice-chair must be a member of the official opposition.
I am now ready to receive motions for the position of first vice-chair.
11:05 a.m.
Conservative
11:05 a.m.
The Clerk
Moved by Mr. Armstrong that Mr. Angus be elected first vice-chair of the committee.
Are there any further motions?
Is it the pleasure of the committee to adopt the motion?
(Motion agreed to)
I declare the motion carried and Mr. Angus duly elected first vice-chair of the committee.
11:05 a.m.
Some hon. members
Hear, hear!
11:05 a.m.
The Clerk
Pursuant to Standing Order 106(2), the second vice-chair must be a member of an opposition party other than the official opposition.
I am now prepared to receive a motion for the second vice-chair.
Mr. Angus.
11:05 a.m.
The Clerk
It has been moved by Mr. Angus that Mr. Simms be elected second vice-chair of the committee.
Is it the pleasure of the committee to adopt the motion?
(Motion agreed to)
I declare the motion carried and Mr. Simms duly elected second vice-chair of the committee.
I now invite Mr. Moore to take the chair.
11:05 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Rob Moore
Thank you all for your votes. I appreciate it. Congratulations to the vice-chair and second vice-chair as well.
I look forward to working with all of you in this 41st Parliament on the Standing Committee on Heritage. I know there's a lot of good work that is going to be done.
At this point, and with the committee's consent, we'll proceed to consideration of the routine motions. I believe the clerk has distributed a list already of the principal routine motions.
The first motion is to retain the services of analysts: that the committee retain, as needed and at the discretion of the chair, the services of one or more analysts from the Library of Parliament to assist it in its work.
(Motion agreed to)
At this time I want to introduce the analysts from the Library of Parliament, Michael Dewing and Marion Ménard. They will be assisting us in the capacity of analysts.
I also wish to thank the clerk for starting the meeting off. We look forward to working with you as well.
The next motion is on the subcommittee on agenda and procedure. Is there any discussion on that motion?
Mr. Calandra.
11:05 a.m.
Conservative
Paul Calandra Conservative Oak Ridges—Markham, ON
Mr. Chair, I have an amendment to that, which I printed out. I can provide it to you, if you want to read it, or would you rather I read it?
11:05 a.m.
Conservative
Paul Calandra Conservative Oak Ridges—Markham, ON
Okay, I'll read it and then we'll go from there:
That the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure be composed of five members, including the chair, two vice-chairs, a parliamentary secretary, and a member of the Conservative Party; that quorum of the subcommittee shall consist of at least three members, including one member of the government and one member of the opposition; and that each member of the subcommittee shall be permitted to have one assistant attend any meetings of the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure; in addition, each party shall be permitted to have one staff member from a House officer attend any meeting.
11:05 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Rob Moore
Do you want me to read it? Do you want Mr. Calandra to read it, or would you like the clerk to read it?
11:05 a.m.
NDP
Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON
Mr. Moore, you are very careful in how you speak, so you'd probably speak a little slower. I'm a little slow at things; I sometimes need to write things out as people are talking.
11:05 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Rob Moore
It says:
That the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure be composed of five members, including the chair, the two vice-chairs, the parliamentary secretary, and a member of the Conservative Party; quorum of the subcommittee shall consist of at least three members, including one member of government and one member of the opposition; that each member of the subcommittee shall be permitted to have one assistant attend any meetings of the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure; in addition, each party shall be permitted to have one staff member from a House officer attend any meeting.
Mr. Angus.
11:10 a.m.
NDP
Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON
The standard at committees has been the chair and the two vice-chairs. We don't have a problem with the parliamentary secretary, even though I think that is a change from past practice in the House of Commons; the parliamentary secretaries weren't on subcommittee. I don't see the need to add an extra member of the Conservative Party. The subcommittee is where we're going to discuss overall business. If there is an issue of a vote, it would come back here. The Conservatives already have a majority, so I don't think they need to worry about having an extra member to stack the subcommittee.
11:10 a.m.
Conservative
Paul Calandra Conservative Oak Ridges—Markham, ON
Mr. Chair, the suggestion just reflects the current makeup of the committee. Of course we could always, as Mr. Angus said, come back to the full committee to debate anything. But it would allow us, in subcommittee, to reflect the makeup of the committee and set an agenda. Again, as Mr. Angus said, if we had dilemmas, we could come back to the full committee.
11:10 a.m.
Liberal
Scott Simms Liberal Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL
I don't remember this being a standard practice. Nonetheless, I agree with Charlie on this one. I don't think the extra member really makes that much difference. Certainly if a problem were to come out of a particular meeting, it would go back to full committee. Why would we stack the subcommittee for unnecessary reasons? I like the makeup. The presence of the parliamentary secretary is fine, but the extra member, I don't see the point.
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.
11:20 a.m.
Liberal
Scott Simms Liberal Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL
So if I show up and nobody shows up from the NDP, then we go ahead?
11:20 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Rob Moore
Just so we're clear, do you want to read that again, Mr. Calandra, with the revised wording?
11:20 a.m.
Conservative
Paul Calandra Conservative Oak Ridges—Markham, ON
I'll go to the second part, because I think that's the part that's causing some of the trauma.
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 time of the meeting before the meeting may proceed to hear witnesses, so long as a member of the government and one member of the opposition are present.
Does that work?
11:20 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Rob Moore
Is there agreement on that wording?
(Motion agreed to) [See Minutes of Proceedings]
Next under principal routine motions is time for opening remarks and questioning of witnesses.
Is there any discussion on that motion?
11:20 a.m.
Conservative
11:20 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Rob Moore
Is there any discussion on time for opening remarks and questioning of witnesses?
11:20 a.m.
NDP
Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON
I'm wondering about this ten-minute and then five-minute round. I think traditionally there was five minutes for the first round but the standard at most committees would be seven-minute rounds. We would certainly support a seven-minute introductory round with the New Democrats, Conservatives, Liberals, and then we would have to decide how we would do it for the second round. There are various models in committees. I think seven minutes is fair, rather than ten minutes. I think that would slow us down.
11:20 a.m.
Liberal
Scott Simms Liberal Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL
I would agree.
I think seven minutes has always been pretty routine. I find seven minutes is good, especially if you get the other round involved now. Granted, if I'm getting only one question, then I would revert back to the ten, but I'll leave that open for now.
11:20 a.m.
Conservative
Paul Calandra Conservative Oak Ridges—Markham, ON
I think I would agree in essence with the seven minutes, with ten minutes for opening statements and then seven minutes in the first round with the order to be, I would suggest, Conservative, NDP, Liberal, Conservative for the opening round.
11:20 a.m.
Liberal
11:20 a.m.
Conservative
Paul Calandra Conservative Oak Ridges—Markham, ON
It would be Conservative, NDP, Liberal, and Conservative. There will be four questions in the opening round.
11:20 a.m.
Conservative
Paul Calandra Conservative Oak Ridges—Markham, ON
So the second round will be five-minute rounds. Subsequent rounds would be the same: Conservative, NDP, Conservative, NDP, just rotating through to the subsequent rounds.
11:20 a.m.
Liberal
Scott Simms Liberal Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL
It wasn't a slip of the tongue, was it? I was glaringly absent from your roll call.
I can understand, to a certain degree, that I don't get every round, but this gives me only seven minutes, period, for every witness. Is that correct?
11:20 a.m.
Liberal
Scott Simms Liberal Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL
I'm assuming this is a formula based on representation in the House purely on percentages.
Can I make one little intervention, and I'll leave it at that?
In the 37th Parliament, the Liberal Party of Canada had 173 seats, representing 57.5%. The Reform Conservative Alliance had 66 seats, or 21%. Every party in the 37th Parliament, including the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada, received 20% of the speaking allotments in the true spirit of getting different voices from all parties--varied--to hold people accountable and get the right information. That was our majority. We never did go to the actual percentages of representation, because we felt that was fair.
I'll leave it at that.
11:25 a.m.
Conservative
Paul Calandra Conservative Oak Ridges—Markham, ON
I don't know...starting, I guess, as an intervention--
11:25 a.m.
NDP
Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON
I'm looking at this compared to other committees. I think there are problems in the first round. I would say: Conservative, NDP, and Liberal in a first round of seven minutes. Then I think it's fair if we go to a five-minute round.
As has been suggested, if we had kept that second seven-minute round for the Conservatives and then a five-minute round, that would have given them 12 minutes total, which would certainly have changed the dynamics. So I suggest the first round be Conservative, NDP, and Liberal.
In the subsequent rounds of five minutes--and I was looking at how we'd done this in the government operations and ethics committees--it would be Conservative, NDP, Conservative, NDP, Conservative, Liberal, and NDP.
I think it's important that we've always had a second round for everyone in the smaller parties. I don't think it sends a good message that we're going to try to freeze Mr. Simms out. This is about giving people the opportunity to speak. So if it's Conservative, NDP, Conservative, NDP, Conservative, Liberal, NDP, I think that would be a fair balance.
11:25 a.m.
Conservative
11:25 a.m.
Conservative
Dean Allison Conservative Niagara West—Glanbrook, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'm just visiting, but in terms what I've seen in some of the other committees, I think it's fair and reasonable for the members of the government who come to this committee and prepare to give another opportunity.... By all means, if there's time available, the committee could decide to give the Liberals a second intervention after all the members of government have had a chance.
I'll leave it for the parties to decide, but all the members who come here study just as hard. I've seen many times that when there were shorter timeframes they didn't get a chance to bring their questions in. I'd certainly like you guys to consider another intervention after the government members get a chance.
11:25 a.m.
Conservative
11:25 a.m.
Conservative
Paul Calandra Conservative Oak Ridges—Markham, ON
Certainly in the second and subsequent rounds we'd be more than willing to accept government, opposition, government, opposition throughout, as long as we rotate from government to opposition. We can work with the opposition to decide what opposition party speaks when.
11:25 a.m.
Liberal
Scott Simms Liberal Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL
God knows, Paul, I don't ask for a lot.
11:25 a.m.
Conservative
Paul Calandra Conservative Oak Ridges—Markham, ON
We're quite prepared to have government, opposition, government, opposition, and follow that format. I'll allow the opposition to suggest to me what that rotation will be.
11:25 a.m.
Liberal
Scott Simms Liberal Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL
But Dean had asked about the fact that they get a subsequent round. I'm not saying we should go to the formula that was in the 37th Parliament. I'm just asking, in the spirit of what was then, if I can get a little more in there--just one question for witnesses, when everyone else is getting far more than that.
11:25 a.m.
NDP
Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON
We're going all around. You know me, I get lost along the way, so I just want to back up. For our first round I raised the question of having three seven-minute rounds, and then we could get into the five-minute rounds. I would accept Mr. Calandra's position on the second round that it's government, then opposition. We can decide that.
Scott, we've got your back; you'll get a spot. I don't think we need to argue about this. But I think in our first seven-minute round we should do three.
11:25 a.m.
Conservative
Paul Calandra Conservative Oak Ridges—Markham, ON
I'm not off on the first round, but on the second round I'm okay.
11:25 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Rob Moore
Mr. Angus has proposed that the first round be Conservative, NDP, and Liberal for seven minutes. Then it would be Conservative, opposition, Conservative, opposition subsequently.
Is there any further discussion?
11:25 a.m.
Conservative
Paul Calandra Conservative Oak Ridges—Markham, ON
I'm okay on the second round, obviously--government, opposition, government, opposition--I think that's fine.
On the first round, though, I would prefer Conservative, NDP, Liberal, Conservative. The Conservatives should get an extra question on the first round.
11:25 a.m.
Conservative
11:25 a.m.
NDP
Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON
Then we get really thrown out of whack when the second round begins.
11:30 a.m.
Conservative
Paul Calandra Conservative Oak Ridges—Markham, ON
Then switch the second round to opposition, government, opposition, government. Does that work?
11:30 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Rob Moore
We need to be really clear. I think this is important, because in the fall we're going to be having meetings, questions and witnesses. I think I'll see how the clerk does with this.
Do you want to attempt to summarize the discussion and put that into wording that we approve? Or do you want me to do it?
Mr. Calandra.
11:30 a.m.
Conservative
Paul Calandra Conservative Oak Ridges—Markham, ON
As long as we are in agreement. We will have ten-minute opening statements followed by the first round of seven minutes, which would be Conservative, NDP, Liberal, Conservative. The second and subsequent rounds would start with opposition, government, opposition, government--at five minutes.
11:30 a.m.
Liberal
Scott Simms Liberal Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL
That's straight through to the end, opposition, government, opposition, government, right? Okay.
11:30 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Rob Moore
There was a discussion that Mr. Simms had raised. I think Mr. Allison had raised the point about when people come to committee expecting to ask questions and are we adopting the principle that no one would get a second question before people had a first question? Is that what we're talking about?
11:30 a.m.
Conservative
Paul Calandra Conservative Oak Ridges—Markham, ON
Given the opportunity, you might cede your time to someone else.
11:30 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Rob Moore
Is it the will of the committee to adopt the motion as put forward by Mr. Calandra?
Mr. Angus.
11:30 a.m.
NDP
Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON
Just to be clear, we're going to go Conservative, NDP, Liberal, Conservative, seven minutes, and then opposition, government in subsequent rounds of five minutes.
11:30 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Rob Moore
Just to be clear, there's no distinction on NDP or Liberal opposition. You will work it out? Okay.
Mr. Allison.
11:30 a.m.
Conservative
Dean Allison Conservative Niagara West—Glanbrook, ON
Sorry to be a pain in the butt, but in regard to starting the second round with the opposition, if we go opposition, government, we're still going to be short a member at the end. It's going to end up with another opposition before our members have had a chance to go once. I state that for the record. The committee can do what they want to do, but if we go with that rotation we'll end up with another opposition going before all our members have had a chance to speak.
11:30 a.m.
Conservative
11:30 a.m.
Conservative
Jim Hillyer Conservative Lethbridge, AB
Maybe to get around that problem we would just go and start opposition, government, opposition, government and when we get to the point where it would be someone speaking twice we go government-government.
11:30 a.m.
Conservative
11:30 a.m.
Liberal
Scott Simms Liberal Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL
Just to speak to that, I think we've been in situations, even in a minority--and Charlie, you would agree--where there were times when we've actually done that. We've just said the rules state it's opposition-government but if there is somebody who needs a question, like, Mr. Hillyer, if you want to ask a question and it's back to opposition and I go again I'm certainly willing to give you an opportunity. We've done that on many occasions. I think in good faith we can work our way through it.
11:30 a.m.
NDP
Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON
I think we really can't start micromanaging. There are many committees we're on where one member will ask questions three times in a row because it's their file. So if we went to the position that until everyone gets to speak then we as opposition would say we're sorry, but the parliamentary secretary already spoke in the first round of questions, so he doesn't get the second round. That wouldn't be seen as fair. You have your rounds and you can divide them up the way you want. You have the extra seven minutes and you could have a four-minute and a three-minute if you wanted to.
So it's within the parties to decide who speaks, because there will be times when someone is going to be the lead on an issue and they're going to ask a series of questions. I think we have a good motion. We're pretty much there. I think we should vote on it.
11:30 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Rob Moore
Okay.
Are you clear enough on the motion?
(Motion agreed to) [See Minutes of Proceedings]
Next on the list is document distribution: that only the clerk of the committee be authorized to distribute to the members of the committee and only when the documents are available in both official languages, and that witnesses be advised accordingly.
Is there any discussion on that motion?
Mr. Angus.
11:35 a.m.
NDP
Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON
We've always had a very clear rule that if a witness brings something that's not in both official languages, it cannot be distributed. They are told in advance. It can be translated. If they want to give it to us, it's translated, and we get it later, but it's not distributed at the table. We would be very strong about this.
11:35 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Rob Moore
Is there any further discussion?
(Motion agreed to)
The next motion is on working meals: that the clerk of the committee be authorized to make the necessary arrangements to provide working meals for the committee and its subcommittees.
(Motion agreed to)
The next motion is on travel, accommodation, and living expenses of witnesses: that, if requested, reasonable travel, accommodation, and living expenses be reimbursed to witnesses, not exceeding two representatives per organization; and that in exceptional circumstances payment for more representatives be made at the discretion of the chair.
(Motion agreed to)
Next is access to in camera meetings: that unless otherwise ordered, each committee member be allowed to have one staff member present from their office and from their party at in camera meetings.
Mr. Calandra.
11:35 a.m.
Conservative
Paul Calandra Conservative Oak Ridges—Markham, ON
Would that include a staff person from a House officer?
11:35 a.m.
Conservative
11:35 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Rob Moore
Is there any further discussion?
(Motion agreed to) [See Minutes of Proceedings]
Next is the motion on transcripts of in camera meetings: that one copy of the transcript of each in camera meeting be kept in the committee clerk’s office for consultation by members of the committee or by their staff.
Mr. Angus.
11:35 a.m.
NDP
Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON
I'm not going to contradict this. I always think, though, that perhaps this might be the one time to remind all our committee members of the absolute importance of in camera. An in camera meeting is in camera. It's very easy to walk out of here and be talking and maybe say what happened, because sometimes things are very political in camera. It's not necessarily something that people do because they want to undermine the work of the committee, but it really damages the ability of this committee to work if people take what happens in camera and say any of that outside.
So I just want to remind people of the importance here, that what's considered in camera is to be discussed only with the members who were there and is never to be spoken about outside.
11:35 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Rob Moore
That's good advice.
Is it the will of the committee to adopt the motion?
(Motion agreed to)
Our next motion concerns the notice of motion: that 48 hours' notice be required for any substantive motion to be considered by the committee, unless the substantive motion relates directly to business then under consideration; and that the notice of motion be filed with the clerk of the committee and distributed to members in both official languages.
Mr. Calandra.
11:35 a.m.
Conservative
Paul Calandra Conservative Oak Ridges—Markham, ON
I'm just going to read out a bit of a change:
That 48 hours' notice shall be required for any substantive motion to be considered by the committee; and that the motion shall be filed and distributed to members by the clerk in both official languages. Completed motions that are received by close of business shall be distributed to members the same day.
11:35 a.m.
Conservative
11:35 a.m.
NDP
11:35 a.m.
Conservative
Paul Calandra Conservative Oak Ridges—Markham, ON
“Completed motions that are received by close of business shall be distributed to members the same day” means that we're not waiting.
11:35 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Rob Moore
On that point, the clerk has asked for some clarification.
When we say “close of business”, if we could put a time, whether that be 4 p.m., 5 p.m., 6 p.m....
11:35 a.m.
Conservative
Scott Armstrong Conservative Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley, NS
We'll leave it up to you.
11:35 a.m.
Conservative
Scott Armstrong Conservative Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley, NS
What works for her, though?
11:40 a.m.
Conservative
11:40 a.m.
Some hon. members
Agreed.
11:40 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Rob Moore
Okay, so that would revise that motion, by saying “completed motions that are received by 4 o'clock shall be distributed to members the same day”.
Any further discussion?
Can you read that one more time, Mr. Calandra?
11:40 a.m.
Conservative
Paul Calandra Conservative Oak Ridges—Markham, ON
Yes.
I'll read the whole thing: that 48 hours’ notice shall be required for any substantive motion to be considered by the committee; that the motion shall be filed and distributed to members by the clerk in both official languages; and that completed motions that are received by 4 p.m. shall be distributed to members the same day.
11:40 a.m.
NDP
Tyrone Benskin NDP Jeanne-Le Ber, QC
Just a quick clarification.
Are we dropping the “unless the substantive motion relates directly to business then under consideration”? It was read twice and that line wasn't read. I'm just wondering if that's being dropped.
11:40 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Rob Moore
So under that motion that would be dropped, “unless the substantive motion relates directly to business then under consideration”.
Mr. Angus.
11:40 a.m.
NDP
Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON
I'd like to understand the desire to drop that line. It seems to me that we're talking about motions that come up as we're discussing, and those motions would require the unanimous consent anyway. If we take away the ability to do a motion on the floor, it could grind the business of our committee to a halt.
Many times we have worked out a motion as an issue comes up. I think that would really throw us backwards in terms of being able to address issues that sometimes come forward.
11:40 a.m.
Conservative
11:40 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Rob Moore
Okay.
The motion would read:
That 48 hours’ notice shall be required for any substantive motion to be considered by the committee, unless the substantive motion relates directly to business then under consideration; that the motion shall be filed and distributed to members by the clerk in both official languages; and that completed motions that are received by 4 o'clock shall be distributed to members the same day.
(Motion agreed to)
That is all we have on our agenda today, so unless there are any further questions or comments, I will declare the meeting adjourned.