Evidence of meeting #1 for Canada-China Relations in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was motions.
A video is available from Parliament.
6:40 p.m.
Bloc
Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe Bloc Lac-Saint-Jean, QC
Yes, there would indeed be five people, the chair, three vice-chairs and one member from each recognized party. We also ask that the subcommittee work in a spirit of collaboration.
6:40 p.m.
Liberal
6:40 p.m.
Bloc
Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe Bloc Lac-Saint-Jean, QC
Mr. Chair, we are setting the number of people who will serve on the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure at five.
6:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ken Hardie
It's oral. I know it's oral.
That's a firm grasp of the obvious there, Mr. Chong.
6:45 p.m.
Bloc
Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe Bloc Lac-Saint-Jean, QC
Mr. Chair, would you like me to send it to the clerk right away so she can send it to everyone?
I sincerely believe that this is a formality and that we could pass it right now and move on.
6:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ken Hardie
Do we have it?
The suggestion is made that we simply adopt this, same as damn is to swearing to you, to use an old expression.
6:45 p.m.
Bloc
Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe Bloc Lac-Saint-Jean, QC
Mr. Chair, if it's too complicated for everyone, I don't mind withdrawing it, because it's a formality that I was asked to propose to you. It makes no difference to me. It is a formality that my party recommends every time a new committee is created.
6:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ken Hardie
Does everybody understand the motion, or do we need to read it out? We do have the text here.
6:45 p.m.
Liberal
6:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ken Hardie
Okay.
The motion is: That the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure be established and be composed of five members, namely the Chair, the three vice-chairs and one other member from the government; and that the subcommittee work in a spirit of collaboration.
That's it. Can we say that's accepted? Are we good?
(Motion agreed to)
Thank you.
6:45 p.m.
Liberal
Rob Oliphant Liberal Don Valley West, ON
Are you ready for the third one, Mr. Chair?
That the Chair be authorized to hold meetings to receive and publish evidence when a quorum is not present, provided that at least four members are present, including two members of the opposition and two members of the government, but when travelling outside the parliamentary precinct, that the meeting begins after 15 minutes, regardless of members present.
6:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ken Hardie
Everybody's heard the motion. Is there any comment?
(Motion agreed to)
Go ahead, Mr. Chong.
6:45 p.m.
Conservative
Michael Chong Conservative Wellington—Halton Hills, ON
I'd like to present the next routine motion on time for opening remarks and questioning of witnesses. I understand that there's likely not going to be support for this, but I do want to read it out to make a point in the hope that members will consider it for a future committee or in the next Parliament.
Let me read out my proposed routine motion for the rounds:
The Chair shall divide equitably, among all the other members of the committee, the time available for questioning a witness appearing before the committee, providing that a member may share or transfer his or her time to another member.
Mr. Chair, the whole reason for presenting this motion is that it would divide the time remaining after opening witness statements equitably amongst the 11 members of the committee. There are five members of the committee from the ministerial party. There are four from the official opposition party. There's one from the Bloc Québécois, and there's one from the New Democratic Party.
My observation, Mr. Chair, has been that the routine motion that has been adopted in other committees, which is very different from this one, effectively means that two members of this committee get 45% of the time on most committees, simply because we often have two one-hour panels and, once you get through that opening round of 24 minutes, then you have turns of five, five, two and a half and two and a half minutes. Effectively, two members of this committee get 45% of the time after two one-hour panels are completed. That means that the remaining nine members of this committee are left dividing up approximately 55% of the time.
I don't think that's equitable or fair. I think that simply taking the time remaining for questions and comments after opening witness statements and dividing it by 11 members, with those members who wish to do so yielding the floor to another member of the committee, is a far more equitable way to divide the time.
I hope it's adopted, but if it's not, I hope members will think about it and potentially have it adopted as a routine motion at a future first meeting of a committee.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
6:50 p.m.
Liberal
6:50 p.m.
Liberal
Rob Oliphant Liberal Don Valley West, ON
I want to thank Mr. Chong for that. I think he's raising an important point. My concern would be that I'm not sure we're ready to be trial committee for this system. We think there should be discussion among all the committees about how it would work.
On the substance of it, I think there are two values. One is that each one of us is here as an individual member of Parliament coming from the House of Commons to a committee, but at the same time, we're also here as a team, so we present a party point of view.
Mr. Chong's motion helps with the first part about the individuals each having equal time, but it takes away from the concept of its being a team effort where we would then sacrifice somewhat to the smaller teams for them to have “team time”, we'd call it.
At this point, we would not support this motion but would prefer the usual routine motion.
6:50 p.m.
Conservative
Michael Chong Conservative Wellington—Halton Hills, ON
Very quickly, because I don't want to waste any time on this, to demonstrate how it would work, Mr. Chair, let's say we had a one-hour panel with one witness. That witness would be given five minutes for their opening remarks. There would remain 55 minutes in that hour remaining after the witness gave their opening testimony. The chair would take the 55 minutes, divide it by 11, and each member would be accorded 5 minutes for their questions and comments. If a member isn't interested in taking their time, they could yield the floor to any one of the other 10 members on the committee, whether it's their recognized party or not.
If, for example—and I'll finish with this—it were a single panel of 120 minutes, and let's say there were two opening witnesses statements, there would remain approximately 110 minutes in the rounds for questions and comments. That would be divided by 11, and each member would get 10 minutes for questions and comments to a witness, with those members who don't wish to use their time yielding the floor to another member of the committee.
That's how this system would work if this routine motion were to be adopted, and I'll finish there, Mr. Chair.
Thank you.
6:50 p.m.
NDP
Heather McPherson NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I also thank Mr. Chong for bringing this forward.
Obviously, we all feel that the constituents we represent—as New Democrats, Bloc Québécois, Liberals or Conservatives—deserve to also have a voice in this place. While I don't have other colleagues on this committee with me, I think that people in Canada who voted for New Democrats want to have their voices heard.
I wouldn't support this motion. I think there is something to be said about having that opportunity for different perspectives to be shared, not just as individuals, but as parties, and being able to have that time and that space to prioritize those things that are important to our party protects the values that our party represents as well.
6:55 p.m.
Bloc
Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe Bloc Lac-Saint-Jean, QC
I would like to add to what my NDP colleague Ms. McPherson just said. The current motion already allows members to split the time available to question a witness. So I would be happy to see the current motion remain as it is, and have the Conservatives share their time with me.
I support what Ms. McPherson just said. I just wanted to add my two cents.
6:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ken Hardie
Mr. Oliphant, did you want to speak? No.
Are there any further comments?
We should vote. I'll read the motion again:
The chair shall divide equitably, among all of the other members of the committee, the time available for questioning a witness appearing before the committee, provided that a member may share or transfer his or her time to another member.
(Motion negatived)
