Finance Committee on Sept. 20th, 2011

[Peggy Nash, NDP, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

I hear the chair and I respect your helping us through the interpretation of that. Is there a way to build that into the wording?

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

I have Mr. Brison.

I think I'll go to Ms. Glover first.

Do you want to speak before she...?

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

I will. Perhaps it would be helpful because she mentioned the list of witnesses. If she could table the list of witnesses at this meeting, that would help inform our discussion. But I would also cross-reference it with the list of charitable organizations and experts who are appearing before the finance committee during the pre-budget consultations who will be bringing a very similar message. I suspect we'd have a fairly small list if you took the ones who present to the pre-budget consultations. I think by cross-referencing we'd probably end up with a fairly small list left over for this.

Again, I think the credibility of the committee is in question here.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Mr. Brison, on that point, and just for the information of the committee, you and I were here when the private member's bill from Ms. Guarnieri came forward, and I can tell you there were an awful lot of requests from charities to appear.

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

I'm glad you raised that, Mr. Chair, because that did inform our thinking. We have a report from that. We have a lot of analysis from that, and much of that analysis could be used to inform our discussions and study now. You're right, we've already done a lot of that.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

It could be used, but I think only three members here were on that committee. I would just point that out.

We'll go to Ms. Glover.

Ms. Nash is looking for flexibility. I think that's her question.

[Shelly Glover, Conservative, Saint Boniface, MB]

Mr. Chair, I appreciate Ms. Nash's intervention, and I thank you for so eloquently explaining how flexibility is already built into committee systems.

I know we're supposed to be speaking to your amendment, Ms. Nash, but if you would allow me to suggest, if in my motion we were to add the word “non-consecutive”, so that where it says no less than 12 meetings we would put no less than 12 non-consecutive meetings, would that help?

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

So it would be no less than 12....

[Shelly Glover, Conservative, Saint Boniface, MB]

Consecutive or non-consecutive.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Does that address your concern, Ms. Nash?

[Peggy Nash, NDP, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Yes, that's fine. I would withdraw my amendment. That, I think, would....

It doesn't mean they can't be consecutive, but it allows us the flexibility, if we need to, to push some to a different date.

[An hon. member]

It's a friendly amendment from the mover.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Okay.

So it would be to undertake a comprehensive study of no less than 12 consecutive or non-consecutive meetings.

Ça va? Okay.

I have two speakers on the list, but I'm sensing unanimity, so....

All in favour of the motion?

(Motion agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you, colleagues.

We do have our logistics person back. Kate Bourke is our logistics lead for the pre-budget hearings. She's given me some notes here to explain and answer your questions, hopefully.

We should go back in camera for this.

[Proceedings continue in camera]