Evidence of meeting #1 for Finance in the 40th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was chair.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
Witnesses' expenses.
(Motion agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
Staff at an in camera meeting. The motion is that, unless otherwise ordered, each committee member be allowed to be accompanied by one staff person and one other staff person from each party present at an in camera meeting.
(Motion agreed to)
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
In camera meeting transcripts.
(Motion agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
Notice of motions. In the last session, my understanding is that the finance committee adopted that 36 hours' notice be required for any substantive motion to be considered by the committee.
Monsieur Bernier.
Conservative
Maxime Bernier Conservative Beauce, QC
I would like to propose an amendment to the motions. I propose that we be allowed a little more time. In other committees, 48 hours' notice is the rule, not 36 hours. Having more time would give everyone a chance to familiarize themselves with the motions and to get them in both official languages. Some motions are quite long. Therefore, for the sake of greater efficiency, I suggest that we be allowed 48 hours, rather than 36 hours.
NDP
Thomas Mulcair NDP Outremont, QC
I for one have always believed that we should leave well enough alone. We haven't yet had a problem with the 36-hour rule. Things have worked well and there have been no problems with getting the translation. In any event, motions are systematically translated. This committee has already discussed this rule at length in the past. We've never had a problem. So then we should simply maintain the status quo.
Conservative
Conservative
Mike Wallace Conservative Burlington, ON
It's just a clarification for me. When does the clock start ticking? Is it when the motion is received by the clerk or when we receive it?
Conservative
Liberal
John McCallum Liberal Markham—Unionville, ON
We've already discussed this and agreed on 36 hours. We have never had any translation problems. Therefore, I see no problem with maintaining the status quo.
Bloc
Jean-Yves Laforest Bloc Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC
Mr. Bernier is arguing that 48 hours would be a more efficient way to proceed. But it was precisely because of concerns for efficiency and a desire to speed up the pace of work that the committee opted for the 36-hour rule. I think it's better to maintain the status quo, since we haven't had any problems and the effectiveness of this approach has been proven.
Thank you.
Liberal
Massimo Pacetti Liberal Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
The committee would like to sit on Tuesdays and Thursdays. Therefore, if it decided to do something after 11 a.m. on Tuesday, there would be no time to table a motion, since the 48 hours would be up. That's why we opted for 36 hours' notice. This allows us to discuss the motion on Thursday, following the Tuesday meeting. This is a reasonable time frame and it allows us to work more efficiently. Otherwise, we would have to wait a full week before debating a motion tabled on a Tuesday. After all, 36 hours gives us two sleeps.
Conservative
Maxime Bernier Conservative Beauce, QC
Mr. Chair, after listening to my colleagues, I'd like to withdraw the motion. I'll agree to the 36-hour rule, as provided for in the motion.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
Okay. Thank you. We're all in agreement on 36 hours.
(Motion agreed to)
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
On the questioning of witnesses, I think in the last session this committee adopted two different types: one when regular witnesses appear and one when a minister appears. We'll deal with when witnesses appear.
Mr. Wallace.
Conservative
Mike Wallace Conservative Burlington, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I have a suggestion on what's here. In my experience on this committee and others, I think we're all here to represent our constituents. We all put in a lot of time in our committee work. I'd like to see everybody have an opportunity to have at least a few minutes of questioning, and I mean everybody.
I, myself, have no issue with the 10-minute aspect of the witness part, but on the first and second rounds, I do have a recommendation that's different from what's printed here. First of all, I think everybody should get five minutes. There shouldn't be a seven-minute round. That way, we'll get more opportunities to ask questions, which is what I think is always the key aspect.
You may want to write this down, but what I would suggest is that in the first round, we would go Liberal, Bloc, NDP, and then Conservative, all at five minutes. I worked this out to make sure that everybody gets covered. In the second round, I would go Liberal, Conservative, Bloc, Conservative, Liberal, and Conservative. Then, if there's more time, we would go NDP, then Conservative. Then it would just repeat itself over again.
In this way, if there are two rounds, everybody gets five minutes. Now, the difference between this and the last Parliament is that we have--and I'll be frank with you--one more Conservative on this side. I think it's only appropriate that everybody has a five-minute round to talk to witnesses.
My experience with this committee in the last Parliament was that it was very professional in its approach. We all asked our questions and there wasn't a lot of partisan politics at the committee level. I'd like to see that continue and I'd like to see everybody have a shot.
That's why I want to reduce it to five minutes and make sure that I have a schedule here that meets everybody's needs in terms of an opportunity to talk to witnesses. That's on the first section, Mr. Chair.
Conservative
Mike Wallace Conservative Burlington, ON
Sure, and I'll go slowly.
In the first round we made a slight change. Obviously it's five minutes and not seven. That's my suggestion. It goes Liberal, Bloc, and we move the NDP up. It's Liberal, Bloc, NDP, and then Conservative. In the second round it goes back and forth: Liberal, Conservative, Bloc, Conservative, Liberal, Conservative. That's to make sure that all the Liberal members get an opportunity to ask a question. If there's more time, the next speaker will be NDP and then Conservative. Then we start up again, and we go Liberal, Conservative, Bloc, Conservative, and it just continues on in that process.
The reduced time at the beginning allows for more speakers or more questioners, and it makes sure that all parties who sit on this committee have at least five minutes.