Evidence of meeting #116 for Canadian Heritage in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was funding.
A video is available from Parliament.
Conservative
Bloc
Martin Champoux Bloc Drummond, QC
Mr. Chair, there was a list of members who were waiting to speak. I'm not sure you're following the order on that list.
Liberal
Michael Coteau Liberal Don Valley East, ON
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
Considering that the Conservative member said he had 10 minutes left, perhaps we can go 10 minutes longer.
Conservative
The Vice-Chair Conservative Kevin Waugh
Thank you, Mr. Coteau.
It's a dilatory motion, so we're going to have a vote on the dilatory motion to adjourn.
I'll hand it over to the clerk.
Conservative
Conservative
The Clerk
You can do either one.
I just want to double-check on a last-minute substitution to see who I have on my list right now.
The vote is on the motion to adjourn the meeting.
(Motion negatived: nays 7; yeas 3)
Conservative
Conservative
Jacques Gourde Conservative Lévis—Lotbinière, QC
Since the meeting seems to be continuing and some of our colleagues have to leave, how much time is left for this meeting? I believe we're all quite pressed because one of my colleagues has to leave within the next five minutes.
Bloc
Martin Champoux Bloc Drummond, QC
We have two minutes left to adopt my amendment and two minutes to adopt the amended motion.
Conservative
The Vice-Chair Conservative Kevin Waugh
I agree. We have five minutes, if you don't mind.
We're going to get back to this amendment now. Is anyone else going to speak to Mr. Champoux's amendment?
Go ahead, Mrs. Thomas.
Conservative
Rachael Thomas Conservative Lethbridge, AB
I think you have a list. I just want to make sure that I'm actually next.
Conservative
Conservative
Rachael Thomas Conservative Lethbridge, AB
I have the same problem with the amendment that I have with Mr. Noormohamed's motion, which is that our amendments are being asked for ahead of hearing from witnesses. There's no world in which it makes sense to be expected to have all of our amendments put together and submitted before we've even heard all of the testimony. I'm sorry. That is an unreasonable request.
It's a very minor change. I ask that it be corrected so that we are able to hear from all of the witnesses and we're able to take all of the testimony into consideration before having to put forward amendments. It's not partisan; it's just good process. I hope you hear my plea and you'll make a friendly amendment to that.
I guess I can offer a subamendment. I'll do that, then.
My subamendment is that the deadline for amendments be May 3. That's the day after we hear from the final witness, and it will still allow us to start clause-by-clause consideration by May 7.
Conservative
The Vice-Chair Conservative Kevin Waugh
The only change then, Mrs. Thomas, is that the committee schedule a minimum of three meetings with witnesses, which will be on April 18, April 30 and May 3.
Conservative
Rachael Thomas Conservative Lethbridge, AB
No. The amendment that was made stands. My subamendment is that the deadline for amendments be May 3.
Conservative
Bloc
Martin Champoux Bloc Drummond, QC
I have two questions about that.
First, I agree on the subamendment. I think it's essential that we have the time we need to do our work properly. This is a bill, not some pointless study. It's important. I'm in favour of Ms. Thomas's subamendment because it allows us a little more time.
However, I have a question in mind, and perhaps the analysts can answer it.
If we proceed as proposed, are we allowing ourselves enough time between the deadline for amendments, May 3, and the start of clause-by-clause, on May 7?