Evidence of meeting #1 for Finance in the 40th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was chair.
A recording is available from Parliament.
9:35 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
Thank you, Mr. Wallace.
I have Monsieur Laforest and then Mr. Kramp.
9:35 a.m.
Bloc
Jean-Yves Laforest Bloc Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC
Mr. Chair, I disagree completely.
We have nonetheless achieved a certain level of efficiency, as demonstrated by the status quo. This motion would lop two minutes off the first round when at times, if not often, we're short on time. I do want everyone to have an opportunity to ask questions and based on our experience last year, we manage to accomplish that goal. Therefore, I don't see how we would be more efficient if we lopped two minutes off the first round, when a member presents his party's position and arguments.
9:35 a.m.
Conservative
Daryl Kramp Conservative Prince Edward—Hastings, ON
Mr. Chair, I'd like a repeat on the second round just for clarification. I was fine with Mr. Wallace's suggestion, but it is my understanding that he wishes to put the NDP back up, and then after speaker nine on the old ones...could you repeat that again? It gives the NDP an option to be able to come in on the second round. Is that what you're suggesting with that?
9:35 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
My understanding is that the second round would be Liberal, Conservative, Bloc, Conservative, Liberal, Conservative. The third round would start with the NDP.
9:35 a.m.
Conservative
9:35 a.m.
NDP
Thomas Mulcair NDP Outremont, QC
In light of the redistribution of the seats in Parliament, we could have come up with any number of arguments. There are fewer Liberals and more New Democrats, but the fact of the matter is that the Chair always ensures that there is a second round of questioning. Even if we're last, we know that we will get our turn, as provided for in the rules. Like my Bloc colleague, I too disagree completely with Mr. Wallace's motion. Besides which, I know from experience that seven minutes go by very quickly, particularly when you're trying to press your point with a witness. Anyone who is the least bit adept can eat up a lot of time. We call them time wasters. If this motion were approved, we would have very little time. Seven minutes are needed to set the scene. I think we can all live with the existing arrangement.
9:35 a.m.
Liberal
John McCallum Liberal Markham—Unionville, ON
I agree with my opposition colleagues on this. First of all, frequently it's good for the first speaker from the parties to have the seven minutes. Also, I think in the past the chair has found a way to accommodate everybody who wants to speak, in one way or another. Sometimes it's through sharing time or other mechanisms. I'd like to register my agreement with the Bloc and NDP on this point.
9:35 a.m.
Conservative
Ted Menzies Conservative Macleod, AB
I'm certainly going to support Mr. Wallace's recommendation. I think you'll find that most times in the last session, in order to make sure everybody had a chance to speak, I most often tried to share my time with my colleagues. I think that's fair. To make sure that happens on all sides, I'd like to see us go to a five-minute round for the first round. To be very blunt, it's fairer to the NDP, to make sure they have an opportunity and usually do have a chance for a second question, whereas this way they're probably left out. I would certainly support this.
9:40 a.m.
Conservative
Mike Wallace Conservative Burlington, ON
Mr. Chair, it doesn't sound as though I'm getting support. The fact is, with the motion as it's presented here, or with the process we had last time, there will be a member of the committee who won't get a chance to speak in the first or second round. That's the way it is unless people take less than their five minutes. I don't think that's fair. I think we're all putting in time here. I can tell you that I have been on other committees before where everybody got a shot to ask a question. We talk about working together, fairness, and all this rhetoric--well here's a chance to put it into action, Mr. Chair. I think it's a mistake if we don't give every opportunity to every member of the committee who's doing the work.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
9:40 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
Thank you, Mr. Wallace.
Is there any further discussion? My sense was that there wasn't--
9:40 a.m.
Conservative
Mike Wallace Conservative Burlington, ON
I didn't hear what the parliamentary secretary was recommending. Was he recommending five minutes?
9:40 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
He's recommending five minutes. The suggestion is to move the first round to five minutes each and then to move to the different order proposed by Mr. Wallace.
(Amendment negatived)
9:40 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
May I make a recommendation, as your chair? If witnesses are given up to 10 minutes on their opening statements, then when we have four witnesses, that's 40 minutes gone. In the past, as the chair, I've found that it's better when you have a discussion between members and witnesses. So can I recommend, as the chair, that you allow me five-minute opening statements for each witness? For instance, if we have one witness for an hour, I can have more leeway in allowing more time. But if we have up to four or five witnesses at pre-committee hearings, and they each get 10 minutes, it really shortens the time for members to ask questions. That's just my experience as chair of industry. I'm recommending that here.
We'll go to Mr. Mulcair.
9:40 a.m.
NDP
Thomas Mulcair NDP Outremont, QC
I'm not sure how you interpret this provision, but when it's stated in the plural, I think one can rightfully argue that it's a maximum of 10 minutes in total. In other words, 10 minutes are allotted for a witness; if there are two witnesses, then it's five minutes per witness; if there are three witnesses, then it's three and a half minutes per witness. I don't have a problem with that arrangement. If you wish to clarify that, by all means go ahead and do so.
9:40 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
Okay.
Well, if it's worded that the chair, when we have more witnesses before us, for instance, can make it a maximum of five minutes.... Obviously, if we have one witness, for instance, the Governor of the Bank of Canada, we want to hear from him for more than five minutes. But if we have four or five witnesses....
Mr. McCallum.
9:40 a.m.
Liberal
John McCallum Liberal Markham—Unionville, ON
I have just a small point.
I think the English accommodates you and the French doesn't. Because the English says “given up to 10 minutes”, so you can make it five minutes. The French says they'll get 10 minutes.
9:40 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
My Alberta French is failing me here, so I have to rely on....
Mr. Pacetti.
9:40 a.m.
Liberal
Massimo Pacetti Liberal Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I think as the chair you have to have some discretionary power or ability to determine how much time witnesses should be given. If you're not able to do that, I don't think you're qualified to be chair. I would even leave it up to you, if you want, but I don't think we have to determine that.
The problem is for some witnesses that want to testify for excessively long timeframes. That's what we should try to avoid. You'll have situations when you may want five-minute or seven-minute intervals, and I don't think we can put that in writing. So it's up to you.
9:40 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
Well, if it allows, and if the committee agrees, that I can do five minutes for more witnesses, then I'm fine with the motion as worded.
Mr. Bernier, did you want to comment?
9:40 a.m.
Conservative
Maxime Bernier Conservative Beauce, QC
I agree with this interpretation of the French version whereby witnesses are allotted 10 minutes. One could interpret this as meaning that each witness is allotted 10 minutes. The text could read “jusqu'à 10 minutes“. This would reflect more accurately the wording of the English motion. My colleague Mr. McCallum was indeed right.