Evidence of meeting #1 for Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities in the 39th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was liberal.
A recording is available from Parliament.
4:10 p.m.
Liberal
Geoff Regan Liberal Halifax West, NS
When you say the first round would be the same as it is, don't you mean that the first round would be as proposed in the motion?
4:15 p.m.
Liberal
Geoff Regan Liberal Halifax West, NS
So the second round is what he proposes to change with the motion. The first round would be the same as it is in Mr. Lake's motion.
4:15 p.m.
Conservative
Mike Lake Conservative Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB
That's what I'm trying to clarify, because my understanding was that we were looking at a change to what I'd suggested in my comments. I wanted to make sure we were clear on the difference between the motion and the comments.
My understanding is that the amendment is based on what I was saying in my comments, so the amendment would mean that the order in the first round of seven minutes would be Liberal, Bloc, Conservative, NDP, Liberal, and Conservative. The order in the second round of five minutes would be Liberal, Conservative, Bloc, Liberal, Conservative, and NDP. At that point, after the last Conservative in the second round, every single person would have had an opportunity to ask questions once, and the NDP member would be the first member at this table to get a chance to ask questions twice. In fact, if we only had two rounds he would be the only member to get a chance to ask questions twice. I just want to clarify that.
Mr. McKay, does that reflect your amendment?
4:15 p.m.
Liberal
4:15 p.m.
Conservative
Lynne Yelich Conservative Blackstrap, SK
I just want to get on the record that I think the committee worked well. But from the outset, when we decided to set up the speaking times, going back to our first committee meeting, it was debated then as well. But we weren't able to make it clear that it was unfair until we actually had meetings. Then the meetings revealed that it was really an unfair way to handle committee meetings where, as Mr. Chong said, the government was not represented.
4:15 p.m.
Liberal
Judy Sgro Liberal York West, ON
Mr. Chair, I'm hearing the different conversations here on the fact that this committee has done some very good work and everyone has worked well together. In essence, then, I'd like to suggest that we adjourn this discussion until Monday, at our meeting.
4:15 p.m.
Liberal
Judy Sgro Liberal York West, ON
I am moving that we do that, and that in the interim we try to work something out that will satisfy all of us around the table. We can continue to move forward in a positive manner and recognize the issues that have been raised. We can come forward with a couple of suggestions on Monday and maybe resolve the issue, rather than going back and forth and trying to sort something out at the moment.
4:15 p.m.
Conservative
4:15 p.m.
Liberal
Ruby Dhalla Liberal Brampton—Springdale, ON
There was already a motion on the floor. That has to be voted on before--
4:15 p.m.
Liberal
Geoff Regan Liberal Halifax West, NS
No, no, a motion to adjourn takes precedence and is non-debatable.
4:15 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Dean Allison
It's non-debatable, yes.
There is a motion to adjourn.
(Motion agreed to)
