Transport Committee on May 4th, 2006

[Charles Hubbard, Liberal, Miramichi, NB]

I think it's probably more significant to talk in terms of people or persons, as Mr. Jean has said. In terms of around the table, each person should have a chance before another person should have a second opportunity.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

My experience in two committees in the last session was that it functioned that way. I know each committee is able to determine its own destiny, so I ask for any other comments on this matter.

Mr. Julian.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Under the current structure right here, what is proposed would allow a first round for each party and then a second round that would alternate, so it would be Conservative, Liberal, Conservative, Bloc, Conservative, NDP, meaning that each opposition member or each opposition party would be able to speak one time out of six.

The proposed rotation was inadequate. What I proposed--the amendment I suggested--actually allows for more opposition input.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Bell.

[Don Bell, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

If I understand, Mr. Julian's suggestion would be that the final phrasing would just refer to alternating between parties.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Each party.

[Don Bell, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

Each party.

We ran into this problem of the back and forth last year in this committee. On the opportunity to go around and to deal with the issues in a timely manner, I would agree with Mr. Julian's position. I think it should be amended at the end in terms of between each party.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Scott.

[Andy Scott, Liberal, Fredericton, NB]

I think we're here equally as members of Parliament and I think that once all members of Parliament have had their opportunity to speak, then we can speak in terms of being from political parties and so on. Otherwise, what happens is that those of us who are in numbers of four and five, have one-fifth of our party's opportunities, or one-fourth of our party's opportunities, compared with those of us who are here singly. As long as that's respected, I think that's where we want to go.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Jean.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

I would make a motion at this time, Mr. Chair: that witnesses be given up to ten minutes for their opening statement; that, during the questioning of the witnesses, there be allocated five minutes for each person present; and thereafter, at the discretion of the chair, time be allocated between each party on an equitable basis. That would give each person an opportunity to question the witnesses.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Julian.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Chair, now we're getting into a procedural muddle, because we're looking at two amendments on the floor that are contradictory. I did move my amendment first, which is what we would have to vote on.

I think the sense of what Mr. Jean is suggesting is actually that we have a smaller question period at the beginning, which would be a disadvantage for each party, moving from seven to five minutes. It would be a clear disadvantage to each of us to provide the kind of questions that we need to ask on behalf of our parties and our electorate. So I would disagree with the move to reduce the period of questioning; I think that would be a disservice to this committee.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Laframboise.

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

I would second the last motion introduced by Mr. Jean. I suggest we vote immediately on Mr. Julian's motion, so that Mr. Jean can table his motion.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

I think the amendment that was put forward by Mr. Julian has to be dealt with first. His amendment basically changes the last sentence. It eliminates “between government and opposition parties”, and reads, “between each party”.

(Motion negatived)

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Now we will move to Mr. Jean's proposal. Just for clarification, he is suggesting that the witnesses be given a ten-minute opening statement and that there be questions of five minutes for each person present on the committee.

Mr. Laframboise.

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

That's not what you were saying.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

I'd be happy to read out the....

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Maybe we'll ask Mr. Jean to do that.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

I'll reread it, Mr. Chair. It reads that witnesses be given up to ten minutes for their opening statement; that, during the questioning of the witnesses, there be allocated five minutes for each person on the committee present; and thereafter, at the discretion of the chair, time be allocated to each party equitably.

So each person present would receive five minutes, Mr. Chair, and then the balance of the time would be allocated between each party, whichever member wanted to do so. It it would be done on an equal basis, so that with four parties and twenty minutes left, they would have five minutes each.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Julian.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

I think this would do a real disservice to the committee. Looking at how other committees are being structured, this is not how they are doing it. I think it's a disservice to opposition members too. So I would oppose the amendment. I think it's certainly a disservice to Bloc members and to the NDP as well.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Laframboise.

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

When you first spoke, I understood you to say that seven minutes would be allocated to the first questioners of each party, and that the second part of the motion would be changed. Now, you're amending the motion altogether. I can't agree to that.