Evidence of meeting #1 for Special Committee on the Canadian Mission in Afghanistan 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.
6:45 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Rick Casson
We dropped it last time, and it really isn't fair because it doesn't reflect the new reality of the composition of Parliament.
So I think we've agreed to let the NDP stay on the second round. I think we've had consensus on that. But we have to add two Conservative spots in the second round.
If I could make a suggestion to make it fair for everybody, we would go Liberal, Bloc, Conservative, NDP in the first round, and I do believe that if we checked we'd find that this is the case on some other committees. Then in the second round we go Conservative, Liberal, Conservative, Bloc, Conservative, Liberal, Conservative, NDP. That gives everybody at the table a chance. It gives the NDP an extra slot if we get the time. That's the thing.
Mr. D'Amours.
6:45 p.m.
Liberal
Jean-Claude D'Amours Liberal Madawaska—Restigouche, NB
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I have a quick question. We could spend all night debating the number of times government members should be allowed to speak, but let me refresh your memory a little. Your party raised the same arguments during a meeting of the Standing Committee on Official Languages. When it came time to ask questions, some government members delighted in asking questions on two occasions, and consequently some of their colleagues were unable to put questions of their own. You can argue what you like, but judging from what happened in other committees, clearly this isn't necessarily the case. Perhaps you are not motivated by the desire to give everyone an opportunity to speak, but rather by the desire to get another chance to speak, regardless of who is talking.
6:45 p.m.
Conservative
Laurie Hawn Conservative Edmonton Centre, AB
That's essentially what goes on. There are times when only two of the three Liberals speak, but they get three slots, and that's fine. That's up to the party. If the Bloc wants to have the same member take both periods, that's fine. That's up to that party. But the fact is that the slots are based on the number of members at the table, which is representative of the House, which is representative of the committee, and that's the only commonsense way to do it.
6:45 p.m.
Liberal
Jean-Claude D'Amours Liberal Madawaska—Restigouche, NB
Mr. Chair, I understand what Mr. Hawn is trying to say, but this is not what the government side has being saying from the outset. At some point, maybe we should wrap up this discussion. Clearly, we are at an impasse. You were not arguing in favour of giving members another chance to speak, but rather arguing that each member should be entitled to speak. I don't think we're going to change anyone's mind.
So then, Mr. Chair, if possible, we should vote on the motion.
March 11th, 2009 / 6:45 p.m.
Liberal
Kirsty Duncan Liberal Etobicoke North, ON
I just wanted to say that we had a similar issue in the health committee. I think we came to the conclusion that when it's an issue as fundamental as health, or a committee for this issue, we decided to do the right thing, and that is to have the input from all parties, and we wanted it to be fair.
6:45 p.m.
Conservative
6:45 p.m.
Liberal
Kirsty Duncan Liberal Etobicoke North, ON
I think it's interesting to look at the second round. Is that a typo, or was that another way of bringing that into the argument?
6:45 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Rick Casson
This is prepared by the clerks. They had no input from anybody, I don't believe.
6:45 p.m.
A voice
It's a typo.
6:45 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Rick Casson
We have Mr. Obhrai and Mr. MacKenzie, and then we're going to have to start folding this up here somehow.
Mr. Obhrai.
6:45 p.m.
Conservative
Deepak Obhrai Conservative Calgary East, AB
I have my amendment ready for us to start voting on it. So when they are ready to work, we'll put the amendment.
6:45 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Rick Casson
I just have to find your amendment. That was on the first one, and then we're going to leave everything the same.
6:45 p.m.
Conservative
6:50 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Rick Casson
All right.
I want Mr. MacKenzie to end our speaking on this. Then we're going to present a motion here.
6:50 p.m.
Conservative
Dave MacKenzie Conservative Oxford, ON
I think I've lost track of where we were and was going to ask for clarification.
I understood Mr. Obhrai's motion, but I'm wondering if it shouldn't be one motion that sets the whole speaking order.
6:50 p.m.
Conservative
Dave MacKenzie Conservative Oxford, ON
I concur with the comments of my colleague across. When you make the change that Deepak has asked for, then it would not be out of sync to have a Conservative, a Liberal, and a Conservative, and so on, through that second round. I would suggest that's what we do.
6:50 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Rick Casson
We had a motion tabled and moved, and then we had an amendment.
Mr. Obhrai, it was you who presented the amendment. Do you just want to clarify that for the committee?
