Transport Committee on May 4th, 2006

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Comments?

[Don Bell, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

What would the wording then be that would bring this into effect?

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

The first round would be seven minutes with the amendment for the first questioner of each party. The second round would be for five minutes for members of each party who have not already spoken. In the third round, once everyone has had a chance to speak, then we would have whatever remaining time divided by four.

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

Mr. Chair, sorry to interrupt, but I think it would be fair to start with the Bloc, then move to the NDP, and then go to the opposition party and then the government. I think that would be the fairest approach with that final round.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Scott.

[Andy Scott, Liberal, Fredericton, NB]

I think we need to insert the word “alternating” to satisfy Peter's concern that it could go like that. They don't want that, we don't want that. So what happens in the second round is that unfortunately for Mr. Julian he wouldn't participate because he's already spoken. In the last two rounds it would be the government and the official opposition. Then the final round would start with the Bloc, go to the New Democrats, go to the Liberals, and go to the government. Correct?

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

The word “alternating” is in the wording, although we have changed it substantially.

Mr. Laframboise.

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

I don't want us to be penalized, but I don't see any problem with allowing each member to ask a question during the second round, and with letting the debate proceed in that manner. I do want some assurances, however, that my colleague will be given the opportunity to speak during the second round. Otherwise, I don't have a problem with this.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

All in favour?

(Motion agreed to) [See Minutes of Proceedings]

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

This is a horrible precedent.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Item number 7, distribution of documents. Are there any questions or comments?

[An hon. member]

So moved.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

(Motion agreed to) [See Minutes of Proceedings]

Item number 8, working meals.

[An hon. member]

So moved.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

(Motion agreed to) [See Minutes of Proceedings]

Number 9, witnesses' expenses.

(Motion agreed to) [See Minutes of Proceedings]

Motion 10, staff at in camera meetings.

Mr. Laframboise.

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

I'd like some assurances that the reference, in the French version, to “un membre du personnel” also includes party staff persons. Therefore, I'd like to propose the following wording in French: “[...] être accompagné d'un membre du personnel du parti aux séances à huis clos [...]”

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

I think that's the understanding.

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

My point is that I would not want this to be restricted to staff in a member's office. The motion should extend to party staff persons as well.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Basically, that is one staff person, either yours or the party's.

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

Is that one staff person per party per member?

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Yes.

I call the question--

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

We should avoid a reference to “de son personnel” as this would then mean the staff persons in our offices. That wording could be challenged. In my opinion, the words “du personnel” can refer to party staff persons, staff in members' offices, research analysts and so forth. No one could then prevent either a staff member or a party staff person from accompanying us.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Is everybody in agreement with that?

Mr. Bell.

[Don Bell, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

I just want to clarify. Is the wording that each committee member can be accompanied by one staff person of the member or of the party? You can have one person, and it can be either your staff member from your office or a party member? Okay.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Is everybody in agreement with that?

I'll call the question.

(Motion agreed to) [See Minutes of Proceedings]