Finance Committee on June 15th, 2011

[A voice]

No.

[Wayne Marston, NDP, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

There aren't? That's surprising.

[A voice]

One Wellington has....

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

One Wellington has them.

Do they expect that they will get those? They're supposed to.

Mr. Marston, are you finished?

[Wayne Marston, NDP, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

I'll just say that it can be at the discretion of the chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Yes, if it's controversial, we can leave it to the discretion of the chair, and obviously if we have the Governor of the Bank of Canada with us, we could endeavour to have it here in order to have it televised.

Ms. Glover.

[Shelly Glover, Conservative, Saint Boniface, MB]

I was just going to say that while I'm not at La Promenade, I'm happy to go to La Promenade, although I would suggest that the chair use his discretion when there are votes. If we could be in Centre Block, it would just make it easier for us to get to and from, particularly during the winter months. That would be my recommendation for when you make your decisions, but I'd be happy to have the chair make those decisions.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you.

Mr. Van Kesteren.

[Dave Van Kesteren, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Essex, ON]

I'd just like to throw in my opinion on that too. I think this committee will sit a little longer many times, and there will be times when we need to be close to the House, so I think that whenever possible we should keep it here.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you.

The clerk is just reminding me that we are scheduled to sit from eleven to one, our normal time, but you're correct: especially during pre-budget hearings, we may in fact go longer.

So I take it that we don't wish to pass that...? Okay.

The next item we need to deal with is questioning of witnesses. Obviously, this order is what we followed in the last two Parliaments, and it has to be substantially changed because the parties have substantially changed in terms of their numbers.

I am looking for suggestions. I suspect we'll have quite a discussion in terms of speaking order and questioning of witnesses. Are there any suggestions?

Ms. Nash.

[Peggy Nash, NDP, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Well, I would certainly propose that as the official opposition we'd kick off the questions, and then there would be an alternation.

I'm looking at the order the health committee has come up with, which is NDP, Conservative, Liberal, and Conservative, for seven minutes each. This is just the health committee's plan. Then, for five minutes each, it is NDP, Conservative, NDP, Conservative, NDP, Conservative, Conservative, and Liberal.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Okay. That's one suggestion.

If members want me to, just for reference, I can read out what the procedure and House affairs committee and the government operations committee have.

The procedure and House affairs committee has, for round one, the government for seven minutes, the NDP for seven minutes, and the Liberals for seven minutes; for round two, the government for four minutes, the NDP for four minutes, the government for four minutes; for round three, the government for four minutes, the NDP for four minutes, the government for four minutes; for round four, the government for four minutes and the NDP for four minutes.

At the government operations committee, they've gone to five-minute rounds all the time. They have no seven-minute rounds. This is how it goes: New Democratic Party, Conservative Party, New Democratic Party, Conservative Party, Liberal Party, and Conservative Party.

On his own, your chair has a suggestion. Again, it's just a suggestion.We should all think about it. One consideration is the NDP first, Conservatives second, Liberals third, and Conservatives fourth. That would be round one. In round two, the NDP would be first, the Conservatives second, the NDP third, and the Conservatives fourth. Round three would have the NDP first, the Conservatives second, and the Conservatives third.

My own personal view as the chair for this rationale is that every member on the committee, aside from the chair, should have an opportunity for one round of questions, whether it's for seven minutes or five. That's just the principle I'm recommending as the chair. To me, you're all equal as members of this committee. You should all have one chance to question before someone gets a second turn. That's just my advice.

So there are a few options. I'm looking forward to suggestions and discussion.

Ms. McLeod, please.

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

First of all, if we could establish a couple of principles we agree on, then we could work out the details. I think the first principle would be that it's appropriate that each person have an opportunity. The second principle would be that, as Ms. Nash indicated, they would like to lead off, and that seems fine. I think having some rebuttal, as government, is appropriate.

We're used to that seven-four and seven-five, but one committee did five minutes for everyone, so do we actually want to do seven-four or seven-five, or just fives? I think those will establish the parameters, and then we can get into the specific order for each round, if people agree with the principles of whether it should be just five minutes or seven and four with everyone sharing.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you.

We'll go to Ms. Nash, please.

[Peggy Nash, NDP, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

I'd like to support the proposal by the chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you.

Mr. Jean.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

Further to the principle that you enunciated earlier, which I think is a very wise principle, because we were all elected by Canadians across the country, I would suggest that the proposal by the parliamentary secretary is very good. It gives everybody adequate time. I think your idea of having it alternate, as you suggested, is good, but I think five minutes would give each member the opportunity to express the position of their constituents who actually sent them here to decide on things. It would give everybody equal opportunity. Then, there are usually rounds left over at the end so that if somebody really wants to make some extra points, they can have the opportunity to do so instead of us just burning the time.

My suggestion would be the five minutes, as was mentioned by Ms. McLeod. I think it's a good idea to have those rounds at five minutes and have them alternate equally.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

So you're recommending five minutes for everyone?

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

Yes, I'm recommending five minutes for everybody, instead of a four and seven, because usually with seven minutes there's sharing time and so on.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

But are you okay with the chair's proposal?

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

I think the chair's proposal is excellent.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

That's the chair's proposal with five minutes. Okay.

I have Ms. Sgro and then Ms. Glover.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

Could you give me your proposal again?

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

The proposal is that round one would be number one, NDP; number two, Conservative; number three, Liberal; number four, Conservative.

Round two would be NDP, Conservative, NDP, Conservative.

Round three would be NDP, Conservative, Conservative.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

So what you're suggesting is that the Liberals would have one opportunity at five minutes per meeting?