Evidence of meeting #7 for Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities in the 40th Parliament, 3rd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was meeting.
A recording is available from Parliament.
3:50 p.m.
Liberal
Raymonde Folco Liberal Laval—Les Îles, QC
No, no. Prior to the meeting. That's what you mean, isn't it?
3:50 p.m.
Conservative
Ed Komarnicki Conservative Souris—Moose Mountain, SK
I think there's no ambiguity if it says “to be distributed prior to the start of the meeting”.
3:50 p.m.
Conservative
Ed Komarnicki Conservative Souris—Moose Mountain, SK
And the meeting starts at 10 o'clock, so it has to be sometime prior to that.
3:50 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Candice Bergen
Madam Folco, I'll just.... We had closed discussion, actually, on the amendment, so I was rereading the amendment, and we'll vote on it.
So it's “prior to the start of the meeting”.
3:50 p.m.
An hon. member
Prior to the scheduled start of the meeting.
3:50 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Candice Bergen
Well, prior to the start of the meeting. We know it's when the meeting—
March 29th, 2010 / 3:50 p.m.
Conservative
3:50 p.m.
Conservative
Ed Komarnicki Conservative Souris—Moose Mountain, SK
Prior to the scheduled start of the meeting I guess would be fine.
3:50 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Candice Bergen
Okay, we'll put that in. I'll read it one more time, and then we're going to vote on it: “a written version of their remarks be distributed in both official languages prior to the scheduled start of the meeting”.
(Amendment agreed to)
On the motion as amended, do we need any discussion, or can we vote on the motion?
Mr. Lobb.
3:50 p.m.
Conservative
Ben Lobb Conservative Huron—Bruce, ON
I have a comment on the motion. I heard all the people today. Our colleagues made comments about the time and so forth.
I won't make this motion, but I'll make a suggestion that there are two ways if they feel they don't have enough time. One is not to ask a question that's three minutes and 45 seconds, which I know we're all good at doing. The other might be to actually ask a question that's in the estimates, because I've been to many of these meetings, and I can count the number of times an estimates question has been asked on my hands. So that might be a good suggestion for my honourable colleagues when the minister comes, to focus on asking quick questions and asking questions that are on the estimates.
3:50 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Candice Bergen
Thank you, Mr. Lobb.
We're actually discussing the motion, so as long as this discussion is on the motion that's on the table.... No? Okay.
Is there any other discussion regarding the motion that's on the table? All right, would you like me to read it?
3:50 p.m.
An hon. member
No.
3:50 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Candice Bergen
No need to read it.
(Motion as amended agreed to) [See Minutes of Proceedings]
All right. The second item we need to look at is the Centennial Flame Research Award for 2010. For those of you who, like me, are new to the committee, and maybe just as a reminder for former committee members as well, that is an award that we as a committee administer. So the time has come to look at the amount and make a decision on what the amount will be. Then we need to agree on a press release and send out a press release and invite applicants.
My understanding is that in past years we have given out an award of $4,500, and it's been pretty consistent over the last few years. We have not raised it. There actually are funds in the account if we did want to increase the amount. Previously the amount was increased by about $500 any time it was increased.
What I'd like to ask you is, first of all, would you like to keep the amount of the award at $4,500 or would you like to increase it? That's my first question. I'm going to open that up to the floor and see if anyone has any comments.
Mr. Savage.
3:55 p.m.
Liberal
Michael Savage Liberal Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS
Yes. I've been on this committee a few years now, and this is certainly a worthy award. There's always some confusion about the qualifications of this committee to choose the winner, but nonetheless we are mandated to do this. We want to be prudent with government money, but it would make sense to me to bring that up to $5,000 this year. This is research by people with disabilities, who certainly could use the assistance. So I would propose a modest increase.
3:55 p.m.
NDP
Tony Martin NDP Sault Ste. Marie, ON
I would agree with that, I think, in light of inflation and the fact that it's probably a bit more challenging for people living with disabilities to get this kind of work done.
Out of my knowledge of a research institute that operates out of Sault Ste. Marie and Algoma University, the rule of thumb is $5,000 when they get research projects. Typically they're all over the map, but $5,000 seems to be the number that comes up most often. So I would support raising this to $5,000 as well.
3:55 p.m.
Conservative
Maurice Vellacott Conservative Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, SK
I think we're generally agreed to that, at least if I get a read of my colleagues here quickly, but I just would put on the record that this is not government moneys per se. I'm sure Mr. Savage meant that, but this is for the public as well. We could call it tourists', visitors', or Canadians' moneys, which are inserted down at the flame. So it's not out of government coffers per se.
I just want that on the record, so we're all very clear about it.
3:55 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Candice Bergen
Yes, that's a very good point. It's the money that's actually collected at the eternal flame. The amount that's donated is pretty impressive, actually.
I would need a motion, then, that we increase the amount.