Evidence of meeting #13 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 targets.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Liberal
The Chair (Mrs. Deborah Schulte (King—Vaughan, Lib.)) Liberal Deb Schulte
Good morning, everyone, and welcome.
I will introduce you, but I thought before I introduce you we have a little routine bit of business that we need to do with the committee that we didn't get to do the last time we were together and I think there was an interest to get it done fast. I'm just going to take a few minutes. I believe Mr. Fast would like to bring something forward for the committee's consideration.
Conservative
Ed Fast Conservative Abbotsford, BC
Thank you, colleagues, for taking a little time to discuss this.
You may recall that when we first started meeting we established the order of speaking and the time that was allocated for each round. You may recall at that time I had suggested that we go with seven minutes in the first round of questioning. I believe there was a general agreement that even though we settled on six minutes the committee was open to revisiting the issue.
I've noticed, and I think you will probably have noticed, that in our questioning often we're just at that critical point in the process of questioning a witness and our time is up at six minutes. I would propose that we extend that first round of questioning to seven minutes. My motion lays out how it would play out after that.
The second part of my motion, and I'm prepared to sever that if it becomes contentious, is to address the issue of non-members asking questions at this table. I want to be very clear, we're not opposed to non-members asking questions at this table.
However, out of courtesy to each of the full-time members of this committee, the very least we can do is provide each full-time member of this committee an opportunity to speak before we allow a non-member to ask questions.
Each one of us comes prepared for these meetings. We spend a considerable amount of time briefing ourselves on the issues that will be discussed at this table. We come briefed to ask specific questions of specific witnesses. What I would not want to see happen is that one of our permanent members actually find himself or herself in a position where they were unable to ask a question because a non-member pre-empted us. My motion also includes that element of it.
If you look at what has happened over the last few months that we have met, at most of our meetings there is ample time at the end to ask supplementary questions. I believe that's the appropriate time for a non-member to then have an opportunity to intervene and ask questions.
I think that lays out what my motion does. The only thing I would suggest we delete—and it wasn't my intention, this was an oversight—is, in the very last part of that motion, the words “or associate members.” That should be deleted. It would read:
and, that all committee members speak and ask questions of witnesses before a non-committee member present may speak and ask questions of witnesses.
I believe that's fair to the permanent members of this committee, but also allows in most cases a non-member to ask a question at the end of our meeting.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Deb Schulte
Thank you very much.
Before I open it for comments, I wanted something for clarification. In this committee up to now we've never had a situation where someone has spoken and denied an opportunity for a committee member to speak because somebody has always given up their time.
You're not speaking to that issue where somebody decides to give up their time to a non-member?
Conservative
Ed Fast Conservative Abbotsford, BC
Yes, and my motion I believe implies that. It would be unfortunate if one of our members was unable to ask a question because one of the other members at this table chose to cede their time to a non-member.
Out of courtesy, if we're going to cede our time, I believe the first preference should be another member of this committee, and it's only after everyone has had a chance to speak that we offer an opportunity for non-members to speak.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Deb Schulte
Thanks for that clarification. I'll open the floor to comments.
Mr. Casey.
Liberal
Sean Casey Liberal Charlottetown, PE
I've just substituted into the committee today and so I don't have the history. I'm not really aware of the evil this is trying to get at, but I think on the Liberal side I'm probably one of the few who was here in the last Parliament so I bring some history to the discussion.
I have two questions. One, is there a subcommittee on procedure and agenda in this committee? Two, what has motivated the motion? Was there an instance where a non-committee member was invited to speak and thereby members of the committee were prejudiced?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Deb Schulte
Just quickly, we've had Elizabeth May come forward to the committee twice. In both cases, our side gave up part of their time for her to say something. At another opportunity, the NDP gave up their short three-minute questioning at the very end. They were the last ones to speak. That's the answer about what happened in here.
I ruled and we voted that we would allow her to speak. We looked at the procedure book. We have that ability to do that. We did everything within the rules, so there's nothing that's really happened here other than that. One Liberal person gave up half their time for her to have a chance to speak, and at the very end the NDP gave up their time for questioning of the minister when that opportunity came up.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Deb Schulte
Does anybody else have anything else to say on the matter before we bring it to a vote?
Conservative
Ed Fast Conservative Abbotsford, BC
Madam Chair, I don't know if in fact this is going to be contentious. I'd hate to see the first part of the motion voted against simply because the second part of the motion was unacceptable. I'd be glad to sever the two so that we vote on the first part of it, which is on the speaking times for the different rounds.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Deb Schulte
I'm certainly willing to do that. I am mindful that we have a full panel, and I don't want this to take too long.
Liberal
William Amos Liberal Pontiac, QC
I propose that this be brought to subcommittee and that we evaluate the merits of both the first portion and the second portion. I think it would be helpful if we were to have a further discussion amongst our colleagues on where we want to go.
Liberal
Mark Eyking Liberal Sydney—Victoria, NS
If it's going to go to the subcommittee, I suggest you look at our procedures in the trade committee. We went through all this, and we have a new formula. I don't want to mix this up too much, but if you're going to take this over to subcommittee, just look at what's working for us.
Conservative
Ed Fast Conservative Abbotsford, BC
I have a couple of points.
Most of the committees, I understand, actually do use seven minutes for the first round, which is why I felt it was appropriate to bring this back. We had the discussion about it, and I think there was general agreement that we could revisit this.
The second issue is that I'm not a member of the subcommittee, and I'm the one bringing forward the motion. This motion has been on the table for over a month now, so we've all had a chance to review it. I don't think there's anything that difficult about it. We either say yea or nay. I'd hate to see this delayed further.
I am cognizant, though, of the fact that we have three members present on the Liberal side of the table who are not regular members. If you want to defer the actual consideration of this motion to the next meeting, I'd be open to that.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Deb Schulte
If you're presenting that and everyone's in favour, we can wait until next Thursday.
Conservative