Evidence of meeting #1 for Economic Relationship between Canada and the United States in the 43rd 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.
NDP
Daniel Blaikie NDP Elmwood—Transcona, MB
Mr. Chair, I want to speak to the amendment and state my opposition to it.
I sit on a couple of other committees, and as to departure from the practice that has been adopted at many other committees in this Parliament, I don't see any reason for the departure. I respect that members have an equal voice on the committee, but we also do represent the interests of different parties. Different Canadians have elected those parties to Parliament and they have a responsibility to get those views on the record. That's certainly the spirit in which I undertake those additional two and half minutes. That's why I think the order that I'm accustomed to at other committees ought to stand.
Liberal
Sherry Romanado Liberal Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne, QC
Mr. Chair, I'm in agreement with my colleague from the NDP. I chair the INDU committee and I know that often at the end of the second round we run out of time. It's often the NDP and the Bloc historically that would get cut off. I think it's fair to have that sandwiched in between the government and the official opposition party that we have two and a half minutes for the Bloc and two and a half minutes for the NDP to make sure they get a second round.
Thank you.
Conservative
Randy Hoback Conservative Prince Albert, SK
Chair, the problem I see—and we've seen this in the trade committee, which I sit on with Mr. Blaikie—as Mrs. Romanado has said, is that you run out of time. The reality is, when you run out of time, both the NDP and the Bloc members have actually had a chance to ask questions for eight and a half minutes before two other members from both parties get a chance to speak.
I recognize that, and that is a reality of COVID and the virtual meetings. In the same breath, there are many instances in which a lot of members don't get a chance to ask questions because of the way it's set up right now.
This way, at least it would be as fair as possible to have as many members as possible ask questions in an orderly fashion, and it still reserves the right for the Bloc and the NDP to have their full eight and a half minutes into their session, which is three and a half minutes more than most of the members, and two minutes more than people who go in the first round.
February 23rd, 2021 / 6:45 p.m.
Liberal
Anthony Housefather Liberal Mount Royal, QC
Mr. Chairman, obviously this type of an arrangement favours the Liberal and Conservative members, who have more members and who are able to diversify, but it seems very unfair to the NDP and the Bloc in the sense that what keeps happening in other committees is that the Liberals and Conservatives go and then there is a very limited amount of time. It's true that the last Conservative and Liberal questioners are not there, but our parties have still gotten in two rounds of questions, the same as the NDP and the Bloc. I think it would be unfair to take that third round before theirs.
While I understand and respect the amendment that was brought, I don't think I would support it.
Thanks.
Bloc
Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay Bloc Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC
All the committees run smoothly based on a fair procedure. I don't understand why the procedure must be reviewed for this particular committee. That's why I'll also be opposing the amendment.
Conservative
Mark Strahl Conservative Chilliwack—Hope, BC
Mr. Chair, as a Conservative, I'm good at math, so I can see how this is going to go.
I would say, though, with respect—and I know we're in camera here—yes, we each represent parties, but we also represent, on our side, 121 members and that is why, quite frankly, if it were all about equality, we'd have the same number of members on the committee as well.
It was an attempt simply to recognize the composition of the House and the ability for.... We constantly hear about technical difficulties that chew up time, so I would hope that perhaps a solution would be that the chair would look to members for latitude to ensure that all members do get a chance, whenever possible, to ask questions because, again, parties are a part of our system, and that's how we all get here, for the most part.
I would simply say that the reason we have more opportunities to ask questions is that we have more members in the House and that is reflected here. I am not trying to start off on a bad note; I am just trying to have us recognize that if you're the fourth member who has put in time from our side and you get bumped by someone else who gets to go for eight and a half minutes, in terms of fairness I recognize that's the way it's been done, but I think the argument can be made for this amendment. However, we'll see how it goes here.
Conservative
Leona Alleslev Conservative Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON
Mr. Chair, I'm wondering if perhaps we could consider also, to mitigate it somewhat, having fewer witnesses at a committee meeting so even though we seem to get bumped for time, etc., everybody would have a better opportunity to actually question the witnesses as well.
I am hoping that will also be something taken into account. While not necessarily germane to this amendment, it does speak to the larger functioning, because, yes, in all of the committees I've been in, at least two members of the Conservative Party in each meeting don't have an opportunity to speak, when the NDP and the Bloc, as has just been noted by our colleague, have had eight minutes.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Raj Saini
Is there any further debate?
Should we vote on the amendment, then?
(Amendment negatived: nays 6; yeas 5 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Liberal
Conservative
Randy Hoback Conservative Prince Albert, SK
That's what I heard. It's the other way around. I love this chair.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Raj Saini
I apologize. The amendment is not adopted. We will remain with the same motion.
Liberal
Liberal
Rachel Bendayan Liberal Outremont, QC
Thank you.
The next one is on document distribution:
That the clerk of the committee be authorized to distribute documents to members of the committee only when the documents are available in both official languages and that witnesses be advised accordingly.
Liberal
Rachel Bendayan Liberal Outremont, QC
The next motion concerns working meals.
That the clerk of the committee be authorized to make the necessary arrangements to provide working meals for the committee and its subcommittees.