Canadian Heritage Committee on May 11th, 2006

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

I am going to call this meeting of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage to order.

Our first order of business today is routine motions. I think everyone has a copy of them, and hopefully it won't take us too long to go down these routine motions.

The first motion is services of analysts from the Library of Parliament: 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 in its work.

Do I have a mover?

[Jean-Claude D'Amours, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

I so move.

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

Mr. Chairman, I would like to make an amendment to this motion. On the basis of what you have just read, it could end as follows: “and to allow them to be present at in camera meetings.” That is a suggestion. I do not know if...

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

It is suggested to me that there's no need for that motion, that the analysts are always there.

So on the motion of Mr. D'Amours, are we all in agreement?

(Motion agreed to)

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

The second motion is on the subcommittee on agenda and procedure, to the effect that the chair and the two vice-chairs, and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage, and a member of the—then we have a space that we have to fill in—will compose the subcommittee on agenda and procedure.

[Jim Abbott, Conservative, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

What is the purpose of the blank space?

[Georges Etoka, Procedural Clerk]

It's to include the other opposition party, or the NDP member.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Just put NDP in there. Is there a mover?

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

I have a couple of questions. I don't remember that we had the subcommittee last time. I thought we dealt with this—

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

We dealt with it pretty well, yes. It's something that's probably redundant; we deal with it in the committee of the whole.

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

My only concern with adopting this method that some other committees use is that it would change our practice somewhat; we've always had that sense of going around the table and people speaking, which I think has been a good approach.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

If we were a committee of 30 people, it might be okay.

[Jim Abbott, Conservative, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

I don't have my heels dug in on this at all. I'm just thinking, though, that there would have to be an agreement by the committee of the whole that the subcommittee would actually perform some kind of task. So it's not as if it's going to automatically happen, but I'm just suggesting that we might want to consider that it's there, it's a tool, and if it needs to be used, that's fine. It could be a very redundant tool, but to not have it in the quiver would.... It has to be there for some reason, as far as committees are concerned. As I say, if the fail-safe is that it would only go to the subcommittee on agenda and procedure if it were voted there by the committee of the whole, then it's not a threat. It's just possibly a useful tool that we might be able to use at some time.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Mr. Kotto.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I am referring to the procedure we used last year, and I have the feeling that a subcommittee would only complicate things. I do not know how that might turn out. We got along very well in committee of the whole, and I think that that structure would suffice for this Parliament as well. I have no experience with any subcommittee, but because this is unfamiliar, I prefer to keep the same process that we had last year.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Hearing those things, I've been on this committee for three years and we never, ever had a subcommittee. We've done it all in committee of the whole since I've been here.

Do I have a motion, then, that we do our business without a subcommittee and we do it in committee of the whole? Would that be a motion?

[Jim Abbott, Conservative, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

I'm sorry, what was the motion?

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

That we do our business in committee of the whole, that we do not have a subcommittee.

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

We would just--

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Stroke it out.

[Jim Abbott, Conservative, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Just stroke it out and that's it.

(Motion agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Number 3 is to reduce quorum: that the chair be authorized to hold meetings to receive and publish evidence when a quorum is not present provided that at least three members are present, including a member of the opposition.

Do I have a mover? That is moved by Mr. Warkentin.

(Motion agreed to)

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Time limits for witnesses' statements and questioning: that all questioning of witnesses be limited to five minutes per member and that the chair direct the first two questions to members of the official opposition, followed by five minutes for the Bloc Québécois, five minutes for the Conservative Party, five minutes for the New Democratic Party; and that subsequent questions be alternately shared between government and opposition members, at the discretion of the chair.

Charlie.

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

If my memory serves me, this would be a change from our previous position, which was that each party in the first round took a round of questioning. I think it should stay that way. Again, this might be a practice on other committees where we are more in terms of government and opposition, but we have had a practice that each party takes its position in the first round for five minutes, then we move to changing format.

[Jim Abbott, Conservative, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

If I understand correctly, we would have two fives, which is ten minutes, for the Liberals; then another five minutes to the Bloc; another five minutes to the NDP. So the first 20 minutes would be given to the opposition before it gets to the government. Considering that we are in a minority Parliament, and by virtue of the fact that the government, because we are a minority Parliament--yes, we are the government, but we do not have the same kind of clout or power that you have in a majority Parliament--I'm wondering if it would not be more appropriate to go with two to the Liberals and then with one to the government. In that way if there was a contrary perspective that was wanting to be brought out in committee, it would at least be on the table before it would go back to the Bloc and the NDP and then come back to the government.