Evidence of meeting #32 for Canadian Heritage in the 39th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was point.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Gary Schellenberger
I've heard from Mr. Kotto, I'll hear from Mr. Abbott, and then I'll make a decision.
Conservative
Jim Abbott Conservative Kootenay—Columbia, BC
I might be wrong, but I think Mr. Kotto agreed with the first three points of report number one. The question that Mr. Kotto had was on point four, the minimum threshold.
That being the case, it strikes me that there was a fairly thorough discussion about leaving the minimum threshold at the existing level—or going with the $50,000 to $500,000, which I understand is Mr. Kotto's preferred option.
So we ended up voting, as it were, on one, two, and three, in favour of what I believe Mr. Kotto had indicated that he was in favour of. The question with which we have a respectful difference of opinion is on the issue of point four, the minimum threshold.
My understanding of the vote was that we were voting primarily on the issue of the existing minimum threshold of $500,000. And I believe it was eight to two, or whatever the count was.
Bloc
Maka Kotto Bloc Saint-Lambert, QC
Before requesting the vote, Mr. Chairman, you asked that we consider, because we had already set aside report number 2, reports number 1 and 3. I was waiting until there was a discussion of these two reports. It would have been useful to go over the points one by one. I had initially talked about the list of exclusions, and clarifications were provided concerning—
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Gary Schellenberger
I respect what you're saying, Mr. Kotto. You have expressed to us your desire for report number three, of changing the list of exclusions, correct? That's what you liked—or changing the list of exclusions from report number one?
I think we've had debate. We've had debate around the table. I brought the motion. No one even talked about report number two. That's why I took two out of the scenario.
So we had two things to vote on, report number one and report number three. If number one carried, then number three was redundant. And that's where we stand.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Gary Schellenberger
I'll turn around and make you a deal. I'll tell you what we'll do: we'll vote on number one and then we'll vote on number three.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Gary Schellenberger
Can I do that?
I can't make deals.
We've already voted on report number one. So report number one was eight to two—and you were voting against report number one, correct?
Bloc
Maka Kotto Bloc Saint-Lambert, QC
For the reasons I gave you, yes. I lean toward report number 3, and I would have preferred that the first part of report number 1, the list of exclusions, be part of report number 3.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Gary Schellenberger
Well, the vote has been asked for. It's been carried. Report number one has been voted...and we will not be voting on number three, because report number one has been accepted.
Bloc
Maka Kotto Bloc Saint-Lambert, QC
Mr. Chairman, I want to make a clarification. The vote was called for only one report, but there are three. The second was excluded as a result of your proposal, but we haven’t decided on report number 3. That’s what’s worrying me.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Gary Schellenberger
It's my understanding that we discussed all three reports. No one even discussed number two, so I took it out of the scenario. Then we have number one or report number three, and report number one carried.
When that happens, we don't vote on report number three. Whether we change anything in there, it's—
I called the vote. The vote was eight to two. Report number one carries.
Maka Kotto Bloc Saint-Lambert, QC
I give in, but I would mention one thing for the archives. Consider that you have just opted for the status quo. Nothing is going to happen, in short. So I would have liked, assuming you are amenable, to be able to vote, at some point, on the issue of the minimum threshold in report number 3.
Conservative
