Evidence of meeting #41 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 deal.
A recording is available from Parliament.
3:50 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Rob Moore
Order. Just a reminder to committee members that we are no longer in camera.
Is it the will of the committee to adopt the amendment by Mr. Dubé?
(Amendment negatived)
The amendment is defeated.
On the motion of Mr. Armstrong, is it the will of the committee to adopt the motion?
(Motion agreed to)
3:50 p.m.
Voices
A motion to adjourn?
3:50 p.m.
NDP
Andrew Cash NDP Davenport, ON
I'd like to present a notice of motion that the standing committee undertake a one-day study to invite relevant government witnesses to testify on the process that led to the changes to the naming and the mandate of the Museum of Civilization, given that this plan was never introduced to the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage during its year-long study of Canada's 150th anniversary.
3:50 p.m.
Conservative
Paul Calandra Conservative Oak Ridges—Markham, ON
We can deal with it now, if you like. I'm willing to deal with it now.
3:50 p.m.
Conservative
Paul Calandra Conservative Oak Ridges—Markham, ON
I would like to seek unanimous consent to deal with the motion right now.
3:50 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Rob Moore
Mr. Calandra is asking for consent of the committee to deal with the motion now.
Mr. Simms.
3:50 p.m.
Liberal
Scott Simms Liberal Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL
I think it would be a good idea, because there are positive aspects to this and there are some that may be worrisome. I would suggest that we seriously have a look at this, even if it is only one day.
3:50 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Rob Moore
We're not debating the issue right now, Mr. Simms. The debate is on whether we deal with it right now. There has to be consent to do that right now. There has to be consent because the standing orders would require 48 hours' notice to deal with a substantive motion. In this case Mr. Calandra is asking for consent that we deal with it right now.
3:50 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Rob Moore
Is there consent that we deal with the motion of Mr. Cash right now?
3:50 p.m.
Conservative
3:50 p.m.
NDP
Andrew Cash NDP Davenport, ON
Okay, I'll move it. Do you want me to read it? I have copies.
In the interest of transparency, and given the fact that we did an extensive study of the 150th anniversary, and also in light of the comments from the minister during the course of this week when this announcement was made, clearly this never came to committee.
The motion is that the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage undertake a one-day study and invite relevant government witnesses to testify on the process that led to the changes to the Museum of Civilization, given that this plan was never introduced to the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage during its year-long study of Canada's 150th anniversary.
3:50 p.m.
Conservative
3:50 p.m.
Conservative
Paul Calandra Conservative Oak Ridges—Markham, ON
Mr. Chair, obviously as was announced by the minister, legislation would have to be brought forward in order to effect change to the museum legislation. That would be debated in the House of Commons and actually brought forward to this committee for review.
I don't think a one-day study would be in order. When the bill is brought forward to the House, this committee will have more than one day to study the bill and bring in relevant witnesses with respect to this decision. For that reason we will not be supporting this motion, but we anxiously await approval of the House so that the committee can study it in depth.
3:50 p.m.
Liberal
Scott Simms Liberal Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL
Where was I?
As I said earlier, I would like to have this discussion, but in light of that conversation....
The thing is that the discussion that would take place at this committee would be after you either accept it or not in principle. That's a pretty big thing to do after second reading, because you can't make any fundamental changes. It's just minor stuff that you can change, for the most part. You can't change the principles. You can't change the preamble. It's that sort of thing.
In light of what my colleague from the NDP said—he has a point—I think we should look at the merits and the genesis of this before we engage in debate. It's just one day. I think we can sacrifice one day to get a better understanding before there is debate at second reading.
3:55 p.m.
NDP
Andrew Cash NDP Davenport, ON
I'd echo the words of my colleague. A study that would happen after the government introduces the legislation in the House is a different thing. It's not what we're talking about in this motion. This motion is about the process that led to the announcement.
We're here to keep a close eye on these issues. We heard from many witnesses who would have interesting and diverse opinions on a matter such as this. This never came up in the study. This is what we're here to do.
This motion supports the work of the committee, and it enhances and encompasses the focus that we're supposed to have. This is about the decision that led to the announcement. What my friend is suggesting—and we will clearly participate fulsomely in that matter—is something that's going to happen after.