Evidence of meeting #33 for Environment and Sustainable Development in the 39th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was amendment.
A recording is available from Parliament.
3:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal Geoff Regan
He's proposing 10 minutes. But again, this is a matter for the committee. It's a motion to amend.
Mr. Bigras.
3:55 p.m.
Bloc
Bernard Bigras Bloc Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC
I think that Mr. McGuinty's proposal makes sense because the witnesses will still be present. Nothing will prevent the members of the committee from putting questions to any of the witnesses present. But let us limit the evidence to 10 minutes from one witness only, the associate deputy minister. After that, there can be specific questions on the issues that the other witnesses have worked on.
I think that makes sense. It will allow member to ask more questions than if each of the witnesses made a 10-minute presentation. So I support my colleague Mr. McGuinty's motion.
4 p.m.
Conservative
Mark Warawa Conservative Langley, BC
Thank you for the clarification. What's being proposed is clear to me now.
I don't support that. We have three witnesses: Parks, Environment--
4 p.m.
Conservative
Mark Warawa Conservative Langley, BC
--and the environmental evaluation agency.
If they don't want to hear from the National Round Table, I don't have a problem with it. If we keep the witnesses to a half hour, which is the norm, that gives plenty of time for questioning. When we give them the seven or ten minutes, it often is not that long. To start off by saying we're not going to hear from the witnesses that are there, that we're going to deal with them on a question-by-question basis and the only chance they will get to speak is when we ask them a question...I don't favour that.
I don't want to waste a lot of time on this. I want to get back to Bill C-474 and finish up with that.
Let's call the question. I think it's out of the norm, and I don't think it's fair.
4 p.m.
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal Geoff Regan
Fine. I gather you're asking for the question. Obviously there isn't a procedure for that, but it looks as though you're ready for the question.
Mr. Jean.
4 p.m.
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
I just don't understand. My understanding is that there are different witnesses with different topics. Certainly it would seem to appear that some sort of compromise would be appropriate if other members don't want to hear from them.
How can one person give testimony for all three or four departments? Wouldn't it be appropriate, if you're trying to shorten the time period, to ask for five minutes and then have questions and comments on each? They might have something relevant and unique to give testimony on. Isn't that what it's about--hearing testimony and then asking questions on the testimony and other evidence?
4 p.m.
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal Geoff Regan
Mr. Jean, normally we have the minister, and he'd be the only person making the presentation and others would be there to help answer, right?
4 p.m.
Conservative
4 p.m.
Liberal
4 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
The intention is to allow more time for questioning, and not encumber the witnesses and not allow them to present something.... If time is the consideration, why don't we just reduce the amount of time that each presenter can present? We can move it down to five minutes and then get on with it.
I'm thinking this debate is taking too long. There is other work that we need to do today.
4 p.m.
Liberal
4 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Sure. That would allow them to at least highlight some of the specifics they would draw the committee to.
4 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Yes, and that gives us about an hour and forty minutes in which to deliver questions to them. Is that the scenario?
4 p.m.
Conservative
Mark Warawa Conservative Langley, BC
That's a nice compromise. I think the starting comments from Mr. McGuinty were that maybe we shouldn't have NRTEE here at all. If we did that, then we would have three witnesses, and we could give them seven minutes each.
4 p.m.
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal Geoff Regan
I'll tell you what. Why don't we say 20 minutes approximately for the witnesses to make presentations, which will be divided according to how many we have, whether that's three or four.
The clerk is 99% sure that NRTEE, the National Round Table, is within our responsibility.
4 p.m.
Bloc
Bernard Bigras Bloc Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC
I understand, but there is a motion on the table. We would have to ask the mover.
4 p.m.
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal Geoff Regan
That is correct. We need to know if Mr. Cullen is making a subamendment or an amendment that Mr. McGuinty could accept.
Mr. Cullen, are you asking me to propose that to Mr. McGuinty?
4 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
I am asking you to propose that as a friendly amendment.
4 p.m.
Conservative
Maurice Vellacott Conservative Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, SK
I thought we were talking 20 minutes here. That was your suggestion, Mr. Chair, respectfully.
