Evidence of meeting #4 for Afghanistan in the 44th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was afghans.
A video is available from Parliament.
Conservative
Michael Chong Conservative Wellington—Halton Hills, ON
No. It's okay, Mr. Chair. If they don't have any comment to provide, that's fine.
Thank you.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sukh Dhaliwal
Thank you very much.
On behalf of all the committee members, I would like to thank the witnesses for their time and effort, and for the knowledge they brought to this committee. We really appreciate it. Thank you kindly.
Madam Clerk, once the witnesses leave, I have a question for you.
Now, I gave five minutes to Mr. Chong. When I start the next round, I will start with the Liberals for five minutes. Is that right?
NDP
Jenny Kwan NDP Vancouver East, BC
Mr. Chair, this is a new panel, so we should be starting with a first round of six minutes for each of the parties.
I know that you gave a special provision in the proceedings for the previous panel to give the Conservatives' Mr. Chong the full five minutes, whereas before, you normally would split that time. That's how we've been proceeding. I would say that this is a new panel, and so we need to start with six minutes for each party.
Liberal
Fayçal El-Khoury Liberal Laval—Les Îles, QC
Mr. Chair, I believe it is up to you and the clerk to set up the timing as you see fit.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sukh Dhaliwal
Thank you very much.
As Madam Kwan mentioned, I was always very fair in the last meeting. You have seen me give proportional time. This time, since he's a senior member, I didn't want to confront Mr. Chong.
Going forward, if there's time left between the first panel, I would split it the way I said: the Conservatives with whatever time, the Liberals the same, and the NDP and Bloc with half of that allocation. I think that's equitable, and that's the way I would like to proceed. I hope you're in agreement.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sukh Dhaliwal
Madam Zahid, Mr. Brunelle-Duceppe is first.
Go ahead, Mr. Brunelle-Duceppe.
Bloc
Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe Bloc Lac-Saint-Jean, QC
Sorry, Ms. Zahid. I didn't want to go before you, but I had raised my hand.
Mr. Chair, I think that you have done a very good job from the beginning.
When Mr. Chong stated his complaint, unfortunately for us, he was right. The motion says so. I don't blame you. I want to ask my Conservative friends to be aware that we all want the best for everyone and that we must focus on the current humanitarian crisis. A little wisdom on both sides would be welcome.
That said, I know that they're right. However, I think that splitting the time as much as possible among all parties would open the door to a variety of opinions and issues that may not have been considered otherwise.
Liberal
Liberal
Salma Zahid Liberal Scarborough Centre, ON
Chair, in the last panel, we had a first round and everyone had six minutes. Usually in the second round, if there is time, it's five minutes for the Conservatives, five minutes for the Liberals, and then two and a half minutes each for the Bloc and the NDP.
In the first round, everyone had their full six minutes. In the second round, I think it is fair that if lesser time time is left, if we don't have enough time, that is, 15 minutes to do the whole second round, everyone should have equal time. If six minutes are left after the first round, then that time should be divided among all parties. That's what I wanted to bring to all the members' notice.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sukh Dhaliwal
That is exactly what I wanted to do, if I have the consensus of the committee—
Conservative
Michael Chong Conservative Wellington—Halton Hills, ON
I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.
The parliamentary principle at play here is that the recognized political parties on this committee are not the primary organizing entity to determine whether or not members get to speak on this committee and what time they get to speak. The primary principle at play here is that there are 10 members on this committee, and they should all be accorded, relatively speaking, the same amount of time for their questions and comments. It should not be divided up equally amongst the parties here. It should be divided up equally amongst the members on this committee.
With respect, Mr. Chair, what you've proposed would actually give a disproportionate amount of time to certain members of this committee, to the detriment of other members of this committee. That's not fair, nor is it in accordance with the principles on which this and other committees are constructed. It's supposed to be relative to the standings in the House of Commons and relative and proportionate to the members on this committee. That's the principle at play here, and so I fear that if we go down the path you've proposed, some members of this committee are more equal than others because they'll get a disproportionate amount of time.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sukh Dhaliwal
The point of order takes priority. Who has the point of order?
Mr. El-Khoury, go ahead.
Liberal
Fayçal El-Khoury Liberal Laval—Les Îles, QC
Mr. Chair, I would like to hear from the clerk. What is her opinion about this situation?
Liberal
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sukh Dhaliwal
Thank you.
I just wanted to take advice from the clerk. The advice is very clear. Mr. Chong was right, and I was right as the chair as I have that discretion. When a member does not accept that then I certainly like to see that the member takes precedence.
Madam Clerk, do you want to speak to this?