Fisheries Committee on May 9th, 2006

[The Chair, Conservative, Gerald Keddy]

No.

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

Is this a requirement that you know of, or is that a legal ruling?

[The Chair, Conservative, Gerald Keddy]

No. My understanding is that's under the Privacy Act.

[The Clerk]

The House is exempt from the Privacy Act, sir.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gerald Keddy]

Okay.

[The Clerk]

Proceedings of Parliament are privileged. It has to do with parliamentary privilege, which makes them exempt from the Access to Information Act and the Privacy Act, for example.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gerald Keddy]

Did everybody hear that?

[Randy Kamp, Conservative, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—Mission, BC]

What is the authority that says that this committee can't look at the in camera meetings of previous committees? What is the authority that says this?

[The Chair, Conservative, Gerald Keddy]

I'll ask the clerk here, but I'm going to attempt it anyway. I was saying the Privacy Act, but it would pertain to parliamentary privilege. This is a separate committee from the previous committee, and a separate Parliament.

[The Clerk]

The previous incarnation, if you will, of the committee has access to that, but once the session ends there is a newly constituted committee. The House could give an order that would allow them access to it, but at that point in time it belongs to the House. That's the rationale, sir.

[John Cummins, Conservative, Delta—Richmond East, BC]

Okay, that's clear, but it's still available if the House orders.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gerald Keddy]

Are we all clear or partially clear?

[Lawrence MacAulay, Liberal, Cardigan, PE]

I think we're fully clear, but if you can't have the in camera, my point is you have to be sure we understand that in camera is in camera. Don't destroy anything just because we can't trust each other. That would be an awful precedent to set.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gerald Keddy]

I'm going to read it one more time just so we're all clear.

The motion is that one copy of the transcript of each in camera meeting be kept in the committee clerk's office for consultation by members of the committee.

(Motion agreed to)

[The Chair, Conservative, Gerald Keddy]

Notice of motions: that 48 hours' notice be required for any substantive motion to be considered by the committee, unless the substantive motion relates directly to business then under consideration, and that the notice of motion be filed with the clerk of the committee and distributed to members in both official languages.

[An hon. member]

So moved.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gerald Keddy]

Mr. Stoffer.

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

I agree with that, but there is the odd circumstance that if unanimous consent is given a motion could be presented earlier.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gerald Keddy]

I think we're all aware of that, so there is a way around it.

[A voice]

We govern ourselves.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gerald Keddy]

Exactly.

(Motion agreed to)

[The Chair, Conservative, Gerald Keddy]

I have a couple of examples of what we've done in the past. You guys have them. We're just putting them in order. This is what we did last time. We had ten minutes for witnesses. The official opposition then had ten minutes. The Bloc Québécois had five and the NDP had five.

Everyone has looked over the list and has seen the three incarnations of the speaking order. I'll go directly to the third and we'll discuss that one because that's the one we left off with.

Witnesses get fifteen minutes. The official opposition gets ten minutes. The Bloc gets seven minutes. The NDP gets five minutes and the government gets ten minutes. The second round is five, five, five.

So the Liberals, the official opposition, would get ten minutes; the Bloc would get seven minutes; the NDP would get five minutes; and the Conservative Party, the government side, would get ten minutes. Then the second round is the same order, five minutes each.

[James Lunney, Conservative, Nanaimo—Alberni, BC]

Mr. Chair, thank you.

The challenge I see is that by the time you've gone through a second round, the oppositions will have had 37 minutes, while the government side will have had 15. If we continue that way for subsequent rounds, it seems to me that those of us at the lower end of the pecking order will hardly have a chance to get in on the agenda at all.

That's a concern to those of us at the slower end of the government table. Maybe I should rephrase that.

[Lawrence MacAulay, Liberal, Cardigan, PE]

But you have the agenda. That's the problem. You create the agenda.

[James Lunney, Conservative, Nanaimo—Alberni, BC]

On the health committee we used to go, on the second rounds, from the opposition to the government, and back and forth that way. I'm not sure that's entirely fair either.