Environment Committee on Feb. 3rd, 2009

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Is there any discussion?

Ms. Duncan.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Chair, I'm in agreement with the amendment with the exception of including the parliamentary secretary. My preference would be that they be an ordinary member.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Monsieur Bigras.

[Bernard Bigras, Bloc, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

It's not enough to submit an amendment: the member must also explain it. I would like to know the reasons why the parliamentary secretary wants to sit on the subcommittee. Is he telling us that it is his intention, ultimately, to advise us of government initiatives in order to better guide the committee's work?

Ultimately, he is telling us that the government will now have eyes on the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure. If it is to facilitate the work of the committee and not to ensure that the minister can keep an eye on what is happening in the committee, I have no objections to this. These are two different things. Could he explain in greater detail the intent behind the amendment?

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Thank you for those questions.

In the first half of the 39th Parliament, the parliamentary secretary was not on the subcommittee. In the second half I was there, at the suggestion of John Godfrey, and that worked better.

The purpose of the subcommittee is to provide suggestions. Rather than this body, we break down to a smaller group and discuss a possible agenda. That proposed agenda, if we can reach consensus in that smaller group, is forwarded on. We found it to be a much better use of our time to have me there. Otherwise, I was not able to share with the committee what the government would like to see.

Of course, the committee is master of its own destiny, and we can move on, but it was important to have representation from the government at that committee.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Mr. McGuinty.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Mr. Bigras, if I remember correctly, at the beginning of the 39th Parliament, there was a discussion about having a Conservative member and the parliamentary secretary. There were two government members, along with the chair, and a member from each opposition party. What Mr. Warawa is asking today is simply that he sit on the steering committee, and not another member. So, we are talking about one government member and one member from each opposition party.

[Bernard Bigras, Bloc, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

So this specifies that the representative of the governing party will be the parliamentary secretary.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Right, and in that case the chair would maintain his impartiality at the steering committee.

Mr. Warawa has a motion on the floor. Is there any further discussion?

(Motion agreed to) [See Minutes of Proceedings]

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

The next motion is on time limits for witnesses' statements and questioning:

That witnesses be given ten (10) minutes for their opening statement and that, at the discretion of the Chair, during the questioning of witnesses, there be allocated ten (10) minutes for the first questioner of each party; and that thereafter five (5) minutes be allocated to each subsequent questioner, alternating between government and opposition parties, and that no member be given a second opportunity to ask a question until all members have had an opportunity to ask a question.

Is there any discussion?

Ms. Duncan.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Chair, the first part of the procedure is perfectly acceptable: ten minutes as we go around per party. That's consistent with the way the committees are supposed to be set up. It's supposed to be representative of the parties.

I am going to object in the same way that my representative before me has objected, that it is unfair to then turn to it being by individual. It's inconsistent with the procedure, the way the committees are supposed to be run.

The practical effect is that the NDP never gets a second question. I think we could probably find some kind of halfway compromise, but we need to accommodate.

I should have at least one and a half people here. Nobody was willing to cut themselves in half, so it's just me. I think I can fulfill the role of one and a half, but only if I'm given fair opportunity in the committee. I think we need to find some kind of fair compromise so that my party is also fairly represented in questioning witnesses.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Monsieur Ouellet.

[Christian Ouellet, Bloc, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Mr. Chair, if we add up the minutes, what my colleague has just said is not fair. The NDP gets the floor once, but for 10 minutes. The Liberals get to speak three times, for a total of 20 minutes. If we divide that by three, it equals seven minutes each. The Bloc Québécois gets ten plus five minutes, for a total of 15 minutes; that also works out to seven and a half minutes. So, given the number of NDP members, I think that this party's right to speak for 10 minutes is quite fair in relation to that of the other parties.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Mr. Warawa.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Thank you. Good discussion.

I also did some quick math. If in the first round we had seven minutes, and then in the second round we had five minutes, we would use 63 minutes in total if we had a first and a second round. If we allow approximately an hour for the witnesses, there is an hour and an hour.

If we have what's suggested right now, the first round being 10 minutes and the second and subsequent rounds being five minutes, we'll use up 75 minutes.

I think we often do use an hour for the witnesses. So I'd suggest seven minutes for the first round and five minutes for the second round, and if there is time after that, we could start off with another round of five minutes. It would be Liberal, Bloc, NDP, and Conservative for a third round.

I think the principle of everybody here is that we're all individuals working hard, and we're here because we have a passion for the environment. Everybody should have an opportunity to ask a question before a member in this committee has a second opportunity.

The other thing is that Mr. McGuinty and I were talking yesterday, and he made quite a good suggestion. If a member wanted to share his or her time, and if it was the member's turn and they said they would like to give their seven minutes or five minutes to one of their colleagues, then the member would have that freedom. I think that should be included. I think it's a good suggestion.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Do we need to make that part of a motion, or can that just be a rule-of-thumb agreement between parties?

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

I think it's at your discretion, Chair.

If I might build on that, I would go as far as saying that, in the event Ms. Duncan has something perfectly important to say, I think the question of substitutability might even go between parties. If there's a feeling that Ms. Duncan has not had a chance to finish her line of questioning and has something particularly probative to ask of witnesses, I don't see why we would be precluded from having one member say they'd like to give two minutes or some of their time to any member of this committee. I think the idea that each member is able to come to this committee and be active is important.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

I think that's important as well.

Are there any further comments?

Ms. Duncan.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Chair, I find Mr. Warawa's compromise probably a fair one. I'm not so great at math that I can figure out whether or not I will actually get a second question. If I can trust the math of my fellow committee members, that sounds fair to me. It also means we move on more quickly to the other parties.

I appreciate Mr. McGuinty's offer. I was going to suggest the same thing, that in some cases I may want to offer some of my time to some of the other members.

I come from committees in Alberta where we actually work by consensus. I would prefer that we try to set an example on the Hill and try to move in that direction. I'll try to be as accommodating as possible, but obviously the tone is important. If there's a fair tone, then I will feel the same way.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Mr. Warawa and then Mr. Watson.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

I have a suggested amendment. I think it provides that.

The order of questioning for the first round should be as follows: Liberal, Bloc, NDP, Conservative. The questioning during the second round shall alternate between opposition members and the government members in the following fashion: Liberal, Conservative; Bloc, Conservative; Liberal, Conservative; Conservative, based on the principle that each committee member shall have a full opportunity to question the witnesses. If time permits, further rounds shall repeat the pattern of the first two at the discretion of the chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

You're making that as a separate motion.

Let's deal with the first motion, which is time limits.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

It's the time, which is seven.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Let's move that one first, and then I'll let you go.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Chair, can I speak to that?