Evidence of meeting #1 for Finance in the 41st Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was chair.
A recording is available from Parliament.
6:10 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
Yes. It depends on how long the meeting is and how many rounds there are. After round three, especially if it's five minutes, we'd just simply go to round one again.
6:10 p.m.
Liberal
Judy Sgro Liberal York West, ON
Right, and we would go through it again.
I'd just like to point out for my colleagues in the NDP that when there was a majority Liberal government, we made sure that the others had two questions, as did the Liberals. Given the fact that we are only three parties, not four, as we were previously, it would just seem, in the interest of fairness, that everybody should have a chance to participate. I'm here as an associate member, and it's clearly your....
I think what the health committee did gives a relatively fair opportunity for everybody to get sufficient time to participate in the meeting. I'll leave that up to you. If we look at it, the Liberals would get a chance to have two questions. I think we all want to be fair; we want to get information on the table; and we want to work in a collegial way. I'll leave it in your hands.
6:10 p.m.
Conservative
Shelly Glover Conservative Saint Boniface, MB
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I was here last Parliament, and it was truly unfortunate the way some of the speaking orders went, because there were a number of times when Conservative members were never allowed to speak during a meeting. That is why I would like to support your suggestion, because it affords every single person who sits on this committee an opportunity to have a voice without another member speaking twice. So in the interest of fairness, I think what you've proposed, Chair, is actually the fairest of them all. It takes into consideration the official opposition's position to start, and I too will support the five-minute rounds, because I think in that way we actually get to hear from more members of this committee.
6:10 p.m.
NDP
Wayne Marston NDP Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON
I have a question. There is only one Liberal member?
6:10 p.m.
NDP
Wayne Marston NDP Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON
Then that person has the equal option of speaking, under what you've proposed, and each has that other option, so I would support the chair.
6:10 p.m.
Conservative
Randy Hoback Conservative Prince Albert, SK
I agree with Mr. Marston. If there were two Liberal members here, I think we'd want to give each one five minutes to speak, but the reality is they have only one member here. It would be the same reality if there were one Conservative here. They would have only one chance to speak.
It looks to me as though you have consensus on this issue, and I'd suggest we move forward.
6:15 p.m.
Liberal
Judy Sgro Liberal York West, ON
I have a question. Is the five minutes to be shared, or is the five minutes exclusively for that individual?
6:15 p.m.
Conservative
6:15 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
In fact in the last session a member of the NDP questioned a member of the government with his five minutes, which was quite interesting. You just can't ask the chair any questions, Ms. Sgro.
6:15 p.m.
Conservative
6:15 p.m.
Conservative
Dave Van Kesteren Conservative Chatham-Kent—Essex, ON
I have just a quick question. When I add that up, that's 55 minutes, and if we had two witnesses, we'd have 20 minutes and we'd have some additional time. What would happen? Would we return to the top again with the NDP, Conservative, Liberal, and Conservative?
6:15 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
Yes, then we would start with round one. So in fact given how most meetings operate, frankly you would probably get through four rounds. So the likelihood is you would probably have two Liberal slots. That's generally how it worked in the last session.
6:15 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
And in the last session, typically, colleagues, I tried to finish at the end of a round. If we had to go a couple of minutes over to give the final round some time, that's what I did last session. Often at the end of the round we'd have Mr. Mulcair, who was our NDP member last time. I wouldn't just cut off his time halfway through.
We're seeking consensus, then, for that proposal. Is there agreement on that?
6:15 p.m.
Conservative
6:15 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
It's five minutes.
And I suggest we allow the chair some latitude and say that witnesses be given five to ten minutes to make their opening statements. If we have fewer witnesses, obviously we can have longer statements, but if we have more, especially pre-budget, I really would like, as the chair, to be able to say five minutes maximum.
Is there agreement on that?
6:15 p.m.
Some hon. members
Agreed.
6:15 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
Okay, that's it for motions.
Now I will just put our analysts on the spot to introduce themselves. Again, these analysts are your analysts. They are the committee's analysts. Obviously they work very directly with me, as the chair, but they are here to assist all members, and they do an outstanding job. I can attest to that for both of them.
Mark, do you want to introduce yourself?