Evidence of meeting #1 for Fisheries and Oceans in the 39th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was five.
9:35 a.m.
NDP
Peter Stoffer NDP Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS
What happened there, though, was that from the way guys like us were left out, we never had the opportunity for a second round.
9:35 a.m.
Liberal
Lawrence MacAulay Liberal Cardigan, PE
If we don't go this way, it will pretty well eliminate the NDP.
9:35 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Gerald Keddy
Gentlemen, could I get your attention for a minute?
What Mr. Lunney is suggesting is quite correct. Actually, in the first round the opposition parties have more than double the time. They have 22 minutes; the government side has ten minutes. If you did the second round by going opposition, government, opposition, government, it would allow all members of the government side to have an opportunity for questions.
I'm just laying it on the table.
Monsieur Blais.
9:35 a.m.
Bloc
Raynald Blais Bloc Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC
I would like to come back to what was said earlier. This will also ensure that it will be put on the record. I don't have any problem with the first round, but during the second round, it is important to make sure that all parties have the opportunity to ask questions. Given the time that is allotted to us when a witness appears before the committee, if we go with Mr. Lunney's proposal, it is possible that neither the Bloc Québécois nor the NDP will have enough time to ask questions during the second round.
9:40 a.m.
Conservative
James Lunney Conservative Nanaimo—Alberni, BC
Well, for a second round, if we went to the official opposition and then--well, maybe that wouldn't work either--and then back to the government side, then to the NDP, and then to the Bloc, you're still going to.... That doesn't work very well either.
9:40 a.m.
NDP
9:40 a.m.
Conservative
James Lunney Conservative Nanaimo—Alberni, BC
I'm the agreeable type.
Does anybody see a better way?
9:40 a.m.
Bloc
Raynald Blais Bloc Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC
I will table the motion that corresponds to the formula we adopted on February 15, 2005.
9:40 a.m.
Conservative
John Cummins Conservative Delta—Richmond East, BC
The point is that if you don't give this side adequate opportunity to question, people tend not to stay. The guys at the bottom end of the questioning order tend to leave. That, if you recall, has happened in the past. Isn't that true? That's why it happens.
9:40 a.m.
Liberal
Lawrence MacAulay Liberal Cardigan, PE
I think we should look it over and see if we can keep the members of the government staying around.
9:40 a.m.
Conservative
John Cummins Conservative Delta—Richmond East, BC
I hadn't thought of it before, but it seems to me that Mr. Lunney's point is well taken.
The other thing is that I don't know about fifteen minutes for the witnesses. I'd like to see ten minutes. If you give them fifteen, they take twenty. If you give them ten minutes, you might get fifteen. On this Tuesday, February 15, thing we jacked the witnesses to fifteen, but I'd like to see the witnesses' reports kept to ten minutes as well--but that's another issue.
9:40 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Gerald Keddy
I appreciate that, Mr. Cummins, but at the present time we have a motion on the floor. If anyone wants to speak to the motion, the only thing I might add to that motion as chair is that when we look at this and divide the time up, we have had a terrific history on this committee of trying to provide equal time for all the parties.
If we took Mr. Lunney's suggestion and took this second round.... In the first round, over 50% of the time is definitely to the opposition parties. If we took the second round and went opposition, government, opposition, government, it would give more opportunity, but it still won't even the time up. You're still going to have over 50% of the time on the opposition side, because there are 22 minutes for opposition in the opening round and ten minutes for the government. If we go five and five after that, you still get a disproportionate amount of time for opposition.
Mr. Blais.
9:40 a.m.
Bloc
Raynald Blais Bloc Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC
Mr. Chair, if I understand you correctly, you wish to amend the motion that I have just moved. I presented a motion, and it will be put to a vote. If it is defeated for one reason or another, we can table another motion. You are, in effect, amending a motion that I have just moved.
9:40 a.m.
An hon. member
We have a motion.
9:40 a.m.
Conservative
Randy Kamp Conservative Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—Mission, BC
I think we can hear debate on the motion by presenting other options to know whether we should defeat this motion.
9:40 a.m.
Conservative
Randy Kamp Conservative Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—Mission, BC
Another option to consider, which some committees use, is to have the first round all even, say at seven minutes each. Then the second round alternates between the government and opposition at five minutes each. That tends to level things out.