Evidence of meeting #1 for Environment and Sustainable Development in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was six.
A recording is available from Parliament.
11:30 a.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Yes, it was in a sense a proposal. I may not have used the word—
11:30 a.m.
Conservative
11:30 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Deb Schulte
Okay, we're just having discussion right now. That sounds fine. We're debating.
Go ahead, Mr. Aldag.
11:30 a.m.
Liberal
John Aldag Liberal Cloverdale—Langley City, BC
The question for either scenario is are we staying with one hour?
I wasn't sure if, Mr. Fast, that gives us one hour. I think we have two hours blocked for our hearings for our committee at work, but Mr. Cullen's, was it over one hour? I wasn't sure how that would work. It would take us into two hours and some minutes, unless I miscalculated.
11:30 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Deb Schulte
Could I just clarify? If I got it right, we have four in the first round at seven minutes, rather than six minutes, which just adds four additional minutes. In the second round, we're dropping from six minutes to five.
11:30 a.m.
Liberal
John Aldag Liberal Cloverdale—Langley City, BC
I think that was Mr. Cullen's proposal. We have two different scenarios, and one would equal an hour and one would equal more than an hour.
11:30 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Deb Schulte
Fair enough. When I asked for clarification, he said seven minutes for the first round all across, and then five minutes for the second round. Maybe I got it wrong. That's what I heard.
11:30 a.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
I had actually said six across, five across on the second round. But even under the six minutes across, that still brings us under an hour, I believe, unless I'm doing really bad in my math.
11:30 a.m.
Liberal
John Aldag Liberal Cloverdale—Langley City, BC
The other comment I was going to throw out to the committee is I don't have the experience that my colleagues across the table do, but I'm on a committee that's been going for two weeks now, and in that we're using five minutes consistently. Five minutes goes really quickly. It does really help you tighten your questions, though, so there's a certain value to that in helping move things along and really get to the point. When I saw six minutes, I thought, that's being really generous, and hadn't considered a seven-minute option.
11:35 a.m.
Liberal
Mike Bossio Liberal Hastings—Lennox and Addington, ON
This structure was brought about in the spirit of being fair. If you look at the three parties with official status, of the 327 MPs, the Liberals at 184 have 56.3% of the seats, the Conservatives 30.3%, and the NDP 13.5%. In the allocation of minutes in rotation for a 60-minute panel with a 10-minute presentation, the Liberals are actually going from 56% representation to 48% representation in the speaking order and the time allotted. The Conservatives would be going from 30.3% to 34% in the time allotted, and the NDP would be going from 13% to 17% time allotted. We were just trying to bring about some fairness to the structure.
I think, once again, these can be amended. Why don't we move along this path as we've agreed in the past in the subcommittee. If we find the six minutes is really cramping into everybody's ability to fully engage with the witnesses, then at that point we could revisit changing the time allotments.
Thank you.
11:35 a.m.
Liberal
William Amos Liberal Pontiac, QC
My sense is that regardless of whether it's seven minutes, eight minutes, or six minutes, these are tight time frames. I think the onus is on the members to prepare questions, preferably in writing, I would say.
When you have a witness who is being forced to consider things quickly and respond quickly, they should probably get some guidance at the very beginning so they understand this is going to move very quickly and they're going to have to respond very quickly.
I like the discipline of short time frames. I think it forces us to prepare in writing. I don't have a problem with the short time frame.
11:35 a.m.
Conservative
Ed Fast Conservative Abbotsford, BC
I would just note in the interest of collegiality and collaboration, the PROC committee discussed this matter and agreed to the proposal I suggested at the table, which is why many of the committees have adopted it.
I recognize we're masters of our own procedure here, and obviously at the end of the day we accept what's agreed to, but I think there was a general recognition that the process that had been established over many years worked quite well and provided the right balance.
11:35 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Deb Schulte
Normally you get about four witnesses at a committee. That's 40 minutes for them. If we start adding to this, it's going to be a challenge, for sure.
Mr. Fast, could you repeat what you discussed? Obviously, I got a little confused, so I want to make sure I have it clear.
11:35 a.m.
Conservative
Ed Fast Conservative Abbotsford, BC
Yes, coming out of PROC, I understood there was a consensus reached there, what would be the optimal arrangement. The first four questions would be seven minutes. It would start with Liberal, Conservative, NDP, and then Liberal. Then the second round would be five minutes Conservative, five minutes Liberal, five minutes Conservative, five minutes Liberal, and then three for NDP. That's 51 minutes.
11:35 a.m.
Liberal
11:35 a.m.
Liberal
Mark Gerretsen Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON
I missed that. I was hoping Mr. Fast could repeat that. I realize he was already repeating it for clarification.
11:35 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Deb Schulte
I think it's important. It's changing up the order of questioning and it's changing up the time, not a lot but—
11:35 a.m.
Liberal
Mark Gerretsen Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON
Is this an official amendment that Mr. Fast put forward?
11:35 a.m.
Liberal
Mark Gerretsen Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON
Then I don't need it repeated at this point.
Thanks.
11:35 a.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
I very much love the enthusiasm and the hopes of being able to stay focused, and I would never suggest that politicians are long-winded.
I will caution that this seven minutes blows by. You are also assuming witnesses are brief and want to be brief. Sometimes you will have what they call a “hostile witness” who is seeking to burn out your time. It sounds as though we're quibbling over a small thing—it's a minute one way or the other, but you'd be amazed.
This will happen within the first few months. One of us will look up as the chair says “Thank you; that's your time” and be completely stunned that whatever it was, the five, six, or seven minutes allocated, is gone. You didn't get to two-thirds of the things you had hoped to explore, and that was your shot. You have to imagine the environment commissioner being here with six chapters, five chapters, and a whole bunch of things your constituents want to know about.
In some concession to Mr. Fast, I think we should take a proposal. He's suggested it. I wonder if he'd considered the benevolence we had when the Liberals were in this place.
To Mr. Bossio's point, even when the Conservatives were in the place, there is always a lessening of the government's allocation in terms of seat proportionality to time proportionality. That's a general given; otherwise...well, there are reasons for it.
I think the proposal was the first round is seven minutes, which gives us four rounds of seven for 28 minutes. The second round was all five. Is that correct, Ed?