Evidence of meeting #1 for Canadian Heritage in the 40th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was chair.
A recording is available from Parliament.
NDP
Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON
Does that mean I get seven minutes and you're not going to interrupt?
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Gary Schellenberger
It's been moved by Mr. Angus that it be as I read it for time limits for witnesses statements and questioning: that witnesses be given up to 10 minutes for their opening statement; that at the discretion of the chair, during the questioning of witnesses, there be allocated five minutes for the first questioner of each party; that in the second round five minutes be allocated to the Liberals, the Bloc Québécois, and the Conservative Party; that in the third round five minutes be allocated the Liberal Party, the Conservative Party, and the New Democratic Party; and if time permits, in the fourth round five minutes be allocated to the Liberals and the Conservative Party.
(Motion agreed to)
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Gary Schellenberger
Payment of witnesses, travel and living expenses: 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 at the discretion of the chair.
Mr. Del Mastro.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Gary Schellenberger
Distribution of documents with translation: that the clerk of the committee be authorized to distribute documents to the members of the committee only when they exist in both official languages.
Do we have a mover?
Bloc
Carole Lavallée Bloc Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC
I thought that Mr. Del Mastro was going to move the motion.
Conservative
Dean Del Mastro Conservative Peterborough, ON
I would just like to suggest an amendment, Mr. Chair, that the clerk shall advise all witnesses appearing before the committee of this requirement in advance. And this is not a statement on the clerk; I've worked in the past with our clerk, who does a fine job. It's just that I have been at committees where witnesses come forward and suggest that they haven't brought it in both official languages because they didn't know they had to. So I'd just like to make sure that we make sure it's requested.
(Amendment agreed to)
(Motion as amended agreed to)
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Gary Schellenberger
Next we have in camera meeting transcripts.
I apologize, I forgot number seven. I'm trying to be on a diet here; that's why I missed the meals.
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.
Mr. Bruinooge moves the motion.
(Motion agreed to)
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Gary Schellenberger
Motion eight, in camera meetings transcripts, is that one copy of the transcript of all in camera meetings be kept in the committee clerk's office for consultation by members of the committee.
Mr. Angus moves the motion.
(Motion agreed to)
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Gary Schellenberger
Motion nine, notice of substantive motions, is that, except for amendments to bills, forty-eight hours' notice be given before any substantive motion is considered by the committee; that the motion be filed with the clerk of the committee and circulated to the members in both official languages. Upon receipt of the notice, the clerk shall put the motion on the agenda of the committee's next meeting.
Liberal
Pablo Rodriguez Liberal Honoré-Mercier, QC
I have a question. What does 48 hours mean exactly? Is that five o'clock today--
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Gary Schellenberger
Well, 48 hours is 48 hours. It's not two sleeps. We've gone through the two sleeps business before, so it's the real 48 hours.
Ms. Lavallée.
Bloc
Carole Lavallée Bloc Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC
If you take this to mean 48 hours according to the clock, then I would propose 24 hours instead. That worked very well for one of the other committees on which I served. We even gave ourselves a little breathing room by allowing one sleep. I'm prepared to discuss this option. I don't really want to make this a formal motion, but if members are amenable, I would propose 24 hours.
NDP
Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON
I have just two questions, Mr. Chair.
First, then, Saturday at 3:30 p.m. is the deadline for Monday at 3:30 p.m. if it's 48 hours. That's my understanding.
Secondly, what is the position on unanimous consent for a motion being brought forward at a committee?
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Gary Schellenberger
That's my understanding too; yes, it could be brought forward at any time with unanimous consent.
I have to speak to the 48 hours. It's 48 hours of sitting days. You can't put something in on Friday afternoon at 3 o'clock and expect it to be on the agenda at 3 o'clock on Monday; it couldn't go on until the next Wednesday. People have tried to do that. It got me all upset. I don't like those games. If it's fair for everyone, and that's why even in 24 hours....
Again, I go back to how this committee has worked. We've gone through some of these when something's been slipped into the agenda. I would suggest that our 48 hours worked quite well.
I have to go to Ms. Dhalla and then to Mr. Angus.
Liberal
Ruby Dhalla Liberal Brampton—Springdale, ON
I just wanted to bring up something that Mr. Angus spoke about and which you've just touched upon in regard to the 48 hours' notice.
On the motion we're being asked to vote on right now, it doesn't specify that it would be during the time that Parliament is actually sitting. If we can ensure that there is some sort of wording put into it so that people wouldn't be putting in motions on Saturday at 9 o'clock in the morning when no one's in Ottawa, we perhaps could just have an amended motion brought forward by the chair. Or if one of us needs to do it, we could.
Liberal
Ruby Dhalla Liberal Brampton—Springdale, ON
If we have a Friday meeting, we could identify when the cut-off would be.
Conservative
Conservative
Rod Bruinooge Conservative Winnipeg South, MB
Mr. Chair, I think we are speaking right now to an amendment by Mrs. Lavallée, as far as I know, before we deal with anything else. I'd be happy to make the amendment that you called for, but I will first speak to Madam Lavallée's suggestion of 24 hours.
I think you've already alluded to it, Mr. Chair, in that previous committees functioned well with the 48-hour clause. Also having been involved in other committees, I have often seen that 48 hours does give all parties an opportunity to analyze their positions in relation to whatever motion comes forward. I think it is a good use of our time to continue the goodwill among all committee members.
What I'm saying, I guess, is that I'm speaking against the amendment in terms of 24 hours. I don't know if other members would like to speak to it, but I think I've stated the position of all my Conservative colleagues.
Roger Pomerleau Bloc Drummond, QC
Mr. Chair, I'm new to the committee. Therefore, I have never seen you in action. I'm convinced that the members of this committee act in good faith and that you did your job well in the past. That's what I have always heard from Mrs. Lavallée. However, the point we are trying to make here is that it is important to be able to react quickly to events that transpire outside of this forum. If we have 48 hours to respond to these events, excluding weekends, it's possible that our response will come a full week after the event has taken place. Then, it's no longer news. We find this time frame much too long.
NDP
Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Nobody likes a partisan hot-button issue more than I do. That being said, the reason I think 24 hours would not work with our committee is that, again, one of the successes of this committee is that we actually make some long-term commitments on studies. We certainly need time in our committee meetings to discuss issues that suddenly blow up. There will be issues that blow up and there will be contentious issues. If we go down to 24 hours, it certainly destabilizes our ability to deal with witnesses and with long-term planning. At least 48 hours allows us a bit of leeway. I think 24 hours would just be like a three-legged chair that can always be kicked out.
I think what we have works. It allows us the balance of bringing forward the issues that need to be brought forward and also doing the kind of planning that's necessary when we're bringing in witnesses. We draw a lot of witnesses at this committee, so with respect, I would not support this. I recognize where it comes from, but I think we have a good working system.