Environment Committee on Nov. 15th, 2007

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Now we have the time limits for witnesses, and I really would like to get this done, and then we can move on to what we're going to do at the next meeting.

The motion is:

That the witnesses be given [____] minutes for their opening statement

In the past, that's been 10 minutes.

That, [at the discretion of the Chair,] during the questioning of witnesses, there be allocated

--the previous was 10 minutes for the first round of questioners--

and that thereafter, five minutes be allocated to each subsequent questioner [alternating between Government and Opposition parties]

I think everybody here knows how it worked before. If we want to make any changes, this is the time to do it.

We'll go to Mr. Warawa.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Chair, I don't have a problem with that. What I would like to add is that no committee member be given a second chance to ask a question until all members have been given an opportunity. I think it's important, and again, it's in the spirit of fairness.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

So we follow the order, and I suppose this involves Mr. Cullen. It's mainly that a Liberal may not have had a turn, a Conservative may not have had a turn, but Mr. Cullen may have had two or three turns. I think that's what you're trying to accomplish.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Every person would have an opportunity to ask a question before anybody got a second question.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

In other words, rather than going to Mr. Cullen on the round, we would come back to a Liberal, an unasked Liberal.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

What if a member of the Conservative caucus doesn't want to ask a question?

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

That's fine. Then I can move on, and that does happen, of course.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

So people could speak a second time. They would be given an opportunity.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Sure. Everybody would have an opportunity, and I guess this affects Mr. Cullen the most, because that's the only time I can think of when this does, in fact, happen, when Mr. Cullen gets a second or third--usually just a second--chance.

Go ahead, Mr. Cullen.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Of course, I won't take this personally as meaning that my questions aren't sound enough or strong enough. This has been tried by the government at every committee today and has been rejected at every committee today. It seems to me an interesting proposition when folks have an inability to share. If this is the message the government would like to send in terms of its proposals.... Obviously, we're opposed to this. I've watched bench members argue about time allocations and someone always taking time and the rest of it. That's for them to work out. This has always been sought to balance out what happens on committee. We've had this argument many, many times before, and I'm sure all the government hands are going to go up to argue their points over again, but they know what this is truly about, and if they choose to send that message, then we'll see it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

There are many times, of course, Mr. Cullen--by the way, I think your questions are usually quite good--when all government members or all Liberals don't want to ask a question. That happens quite often as well, and it depends on the witnesses, but I certainly hear your point.

Mr. Godfrey.

No, Mr. Watson. Sorry.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Briefly, Mr. Chair, just to correct the record for Mr. Cullen, it was accepted today in the transport committee, for example, where I was this morning. And secondly, the government is powerless to pass that on its own.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Okay.

Mr. Godfrey.

[John Godfrey, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

I sympathize with Mr. Cullen, but it seems we're trying to balance three principles. One is fair representation for each of the parties, whether they're government or opposition, so that all parties have an equal start with their time. The second thing we're trying to do is reflect, to some degree, the proportional representation of the House. The third thing is to make sure that individual members of the committee, having shown up, actually get to ask a question. If they happen to be fourth in line, whether they're a Conservative or a Liberal, and they've been patiently waiting, it does seem to be unfair that it is possible that a member who has diligently served will not be able to participate while somebody else gets to ask two questions. I think what we're trying to do with the suggestion is to balance those three principles.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Are there any other comments?

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

As a clarification, considering the comments that have been made, what I said was that no committee member be given a second chance to ask a question, and it should have been “to have a question-round opportunity until all members have been given...”.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

All members who wish to.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Yes, that no committee member be given a second chance to have a question-round opportunity until all members have been given an opportunity, or along those lines.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

On that amendment, I again would ask Normand to tweak it to make sure we have the wording exactly correct.

Mr. Cullen.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Just so I understand this, in terms of the first round of questioning, if available to 10 minutes per member sitting on this committee, we will essentially have one round of questioning on our most typical days and will not go to a second round.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Yes, you will, many times.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

That would be the typical scenario setting up.

Obviously, of course, this is about the NDP's position and ability to ask questions. If this is the choice that the Liberals and Conservatives are making—I recall this from when we dealt with Canada's Clean Air and Climate Change Act—it's duly noted and remembered for times when folks are looking for assistance in their efforts.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Yes.

Mr. McGuinty.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

I don't think this is about curtailing anybody's participation. I think it's actually more representative, a reflection of representation in the House of Commons. It has always struck me as somewhat odd that parties with fewer seats actually end up with occasionally two or three rounds when sometimes the government's own members, the opposition members, and other parties don't even get their own members through. I think it's fair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Yes, I've been there and experienced that. It is very frustrating. You have a question and you really want to ask it and it is frustrating when you don't get a chance. I understand that.

We're voting on the amendment. We're not dealing with the minutes. I need approval on that as well as the main motion. But dealing with the amendment that Mr. Warawa put, we will get the wording correct.

Normand, do you have the wording?