Evidence of meeting #1 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 angus.
A recording is available from Parliament.
11:25 a.m.
Conservative
Paul Calandra Conservative Oak Ridges—Markham, ON
I don't know...starting, I guess, as an intervention--
11:25 a.m.
NDP
Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON
I'm looking at this compared to other committees. I think there are problems in the first round. I would say: Conservative, NDP, and Liberal in a first round of seven minutes. Then I think it's fair if we go to a five-minute round.
As has been suggested, if we had kept that second seven-minute round for the Conservatives and then a five-minute round, that would have given them 12 minutes total, which would certainly have changed the dynamics. So I suggest the first round be Conservative, NDP, and Liberal.
In the subsequent rounds of five minutes--and I was looking at how we'd done this in the government operations and ethics committees--it would be Conservative, NDP, Conservative, NDP, Conservative, Liberal, and NDP.
I think it's important that we've always had a second round for everyone in the smaller parties. I don't think it sends a good message that we're going to try to freeze Mr. Simms out. This is about giving people the opportunity to speak. So if it's Conservative, NDP, Conservative, NDP, Conservative, Liberal, NDP, I think that would be a fair balance.
11:25 a.m.
Conservative
11:25 a.m.
Conservative
Dean Allison Conservative Niagara West—Glanbrook, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'm just visiting, but in terms what I've seen in some of the other committees, I think it's fair and reasonable for the members of the government who come to this committee and prepare to give another opportunity.... By all means, if there's time available, the committee could decide to give the Liberals a second intervention after all the members of government have had a chance.
I'll leave it for the parties to decide, but all the members who come here study just as hard. I've seen many times that when there were shorter timeframes they didn't get a chance to bring their questions in. I'd certainly like you guys to consider another intervention after the government members get a chance.
11:25 a.m.
Conservative
11:25 a.m.
Conservative
Paul Calandra Conservative Oak Ridges—Markham, ON
Certainly in the second and subsequent rounds we'd be more than willing to accept government, opposition, government, opposition throughout, as long as we rotate from government to opposition. We can work with the opposition to decide what opposition party speaks when.
11:25 a.m.
Liberal
Scott Simms Liberal Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL
God knows, Paul, I don't ask for a lot.
11:25 a.m.
Conservative
Paul Calandra Conservative Oak Ridges—Markham, ON
We're quite prepared to have government, opposition, government, opposition, and follow that format. I'll allow the opposition to suggest to me what that rotation will be.
11:25 a.m.
Liberal
Scott Simms Liberal Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL
But Dean had asked about the fact that they get a subsequent round. I'm not saying we should go to the formula that was in the 37th Parliament. I'm just asking, in the spirit of what was then, if I can get a little more in there--just one question for witnesses, when everyone else is getting far more than that.
11:25 a.m.
NDP
Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON
We're going all around. You know me, I get lost along the way, so I just want to back up. For our first round I raised the question of having three seven-minute rounds, and then we could get into the five-minute rounds. I would accept Mr. Calandra's position on the second round that it's government, then opposition. We can decide that.
Scott, we've got your back; you'll get a spot. I don't think we need to argue about this. But I think in our first seven-minute round we should do three.
11:25 a.m.
Conservative
Paul Calandra Conservative Oak Ridges—Markham, ON
I'm not off on the first round, but on the second round I'm okay.
11:25 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Rob Moore
Mr. Angus has proposed that the first round be Conservative, NDP, and Liberal for seven minutes. Then it would be Conservative, opposition, Conservative, opposition subsequently.
Is there any further discussion?
11:25 a.m.
Conservative
Paul Calandra Conservative Oak Ridges—Markham, ON
I'm okay on the second round, obviously--government, opposition, government, opposition--I think that's fine.
On the first round, though, I would prefer Conservative, NDP, Liberal, Conservative. The Conservatives should get an extra question on the first round.
11:25 a.m.
Conservative
11:25 a.m.
NDP
Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON
Then we get really thrown out of whack when the second round begins.
11:30 a.m.
Conservative
Paul Calandra Conservative Oak Ridges—Markham, ON
Then switch the second round to opposition, government, opposition, government. Does that work?
11:30 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Rob Moore
We need to be really clear. I think this is important, because in the fall we're going to be having meetings, questions and witnesses. I think I'll see how the clerk does with this.
Do you want to attempt to summarize the discussion and put that into wording that we approve? Or do you want me to do it?
Mr. Calandra.
11:30 a.m.
Conservative
Paul Calandra Conservative Oak Ridges—Markham, ON
As long as we are in agreement. We will have ten-minute opening statements followed by the first round of seven minutes, which would be Conservative, NDP, Liberal, Conservative. The second and subsequent rounds would start with opposition, government, opposition, government--at five minutes.
11:30 a.m.
Liberal
Scott Simms Liberal Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL
That's straight through to the end, opposition, government, opposition, government, right? Okay.
11:30 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Rob Moore
There was a discussion that Mr. Simms had raised. I think Mr. Allison had raised the point about when people come to committee expecting to ask questions and are we adopting the principle that no one would get a second question before people had a first question? Is that what we're talking about?