Always stick with sevens?
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.
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.
9:40 a.m.
Conservative
Randy Kamp Conservative Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—Mission, BC
For the first round, some committees do that, then fives, but alternating between government and opposition.
9:45 a.m.
NDP
Peter Stoffer NDP Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS
In defence of those of us down at this end of the table, I've been to the other committees, and generally what happens is the NDP loses its opportunity for a second round, because of time constraints. So in this going back and forth, we tend to lose.
We think Mr. Blais' motion is the most balanced and most fair, which, I may add, the previous Conservatives when in opposition supported wholeheartedly.
9:45 a.m.
Conservative
9:45 a.m.
Conservative
Fabian Manning Conservative Avalon, NL
I'd like to discuss the motion and maybe make an amendment, if I can. I wasn't here before, so I don't take any blame for anything that happened in the previous sessions.
In the first block, the government ends up with ten minutes, and the opposition is up to 22 minutes. In the second session, we end up with five minutes and the opposition parties end up with fifteen minutes. For a 52-minute period, we have fifteen minutes and the opposition party has 37 minutes. I don't know if this is possible, but I'm going to throw it out and not even try to word the amendment. Somebody else that's been around here longer than I have may be able to do that.
After Mr. Cummins' comment, if we took away five of the fifteen minutes for the witnesses—and I notice in the House of Commons you can split your time when you speak—and if in the second round there were ten minutes for the government party and the three fives afterwards, that would bring you out to 32 minutes for the opposition parties and 20 minutes for the government over the whole 52-minute session.
9:45 a.m.
Bloc
Jean-Yves Roy Bloc Haute-Gaspésie—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC
Mr. Chair, one must understand how this committee operates in order to understand the motion that has just been tabled. It is very rare that we hear from a single witness. If we adopt your proposal, then whenever we hear from two or three witnesses who each make 15-minute presentations, the NDP will never be able to ask questions because we usually hear from more than one witness. It is obvious. Sometimes we summon two, three or even more witnesses. During a two-hour meeting, we do not have a lot of time to ask questions. For example, if we hear from three witnesses, that will take up 45 minutes. Therefore, how much time will be left for opposition parties and the government to ask questions? We might as well say that the NDP will never have the floor during the second round. Over the years, that is what we have observed and that explains the solution we have gone with. This issue has come up each time the committee has been struck over the last five years. We have dealt with this issue for the last five years, and five years' experience has shown us that the last solution is the best one.
9:45 a.m.
Conservative
Fabian Manning Conservative Avalon, NL
For clarification, if we have two witnesses here today speaking for fifteen minutes each, making half an hour, is there a limit on the questions? Mr. Roy is making the comment that the NDP would be left out. Do we go through the whole system here, or is there a limit on the question period afterwards?
9:45 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Gerald Keddy
Quite often there's a limit on how long the witnesses can stay. There are also time constraints on the committee. We have other obligations. There have been occasions when the minister has appeared and we've asked that individual to stay longer. On some occasions he has and we've extended our question period. Quite often members will simply not be able to stay to ask questions. We really do try to stay within our allotted two hours.
On this motion, Mr. Lunney?
9:45 a.m.
Conservative
James Lunney Conservative Nanaimo—Alberni, BC
Shall I offer a suggestion that I think might work better?
We sort of agreed that the first round might work with ten, seven, five, ten; everybody seems happy with that. If we went to the official opposition, then to the CPC and back to the other two opposition parties before coming back to CPC, you would still have 37 minutes to fifteen for the government--and you would have another ten minutes, Peter--before we would get another five. So you would have another five minutes before it would come back to us. It just means that we'd have one round for the government after the official opposition and then both of the other opposition parties.
9:50 a.m.
Conservative
9:50 a.m.
Conservative
James Lunney Conservative Nanaimo—Alberni, BC
Okay. So in the first round, if we leave it as was suggested--ten, seven, five, ten--and then the second round is official opposition, five minutes for the government side, then back to the other two opposition parties before coming back to the government, that would almost certainly give you a better opportunity of coming in. We would only have fifteen minutes for the government side in that entire first round, which would be--
9:50 a.m.
Conservative
James Lunney Conservative Nanaimo—Alberni, BC
It give us one more slot in that second round. In conjunction with that, if we have more than one witness, would we agree to confine them to ten minutes?
9:50 a.m.
Bloc
Raynald Blais Bloc Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC
I understand that Mr. Lunney is expressing his opinion, but we could debate this endlessly. I would like us to work in an orderly fashion. Now, if Mr. Lunney wants to table an amendment, he should do so and we will vote on it. We can go on debating at length, but at this point, I believe that it is important that we respect order and procedure. Otherwise, we will exhaust ourselves.
Therefore, I ask that the motion be put to a vote.
9:50 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Gerald Keddy
Mr. Blais, are you suggesting, then, that we vote on Mr. Lunney's amendment to your motion?
9:50 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Gerald Keddy
We just want to be clear on the amendment: that the first round would stay the same, and in the second round, the official opposition would have five minutes, the government would have five minutes, the Bloc would have five minutes, the NDP would have five minutes, before we came back to the second government round of five minutes. Then the order would go back again to the official opposition.
9:50 a.m.
Conservative
James Lunney Conservative Nanaimo—Alberni, BC
I don't know whether this complicates it, but when we're talking about witness time, if we talk about fifteen minutes, which it is now, if we have more than one witness, we confine that to ten minutes, which only makes sense. That way it would keep more time for questions. Do we need that as part of the same motion?
9:50 a.m.
Conservative
9:50 a.m.
Conservative
James Lunney Conservative Nanaimo—Alberni, BC
Well, they come a long way. I think there are some times that a witness probably--
9:50 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Gerald Keddy
It's all part of the same issue. The amendment is that in ithe second round, the official opposition has the first five minutes, the government has five minutes, the Bloc Québécois has five minutes, the NDP has five minutes, back to the government for five minutes, and then through the order again.
Mr. Cummins, we're just about ready to vote. Is it on the motion?
9:50 a.m.
Conservative
John Cummins Conservative Delta—Richmond East, BC
It is. I'm just noting that quite often we might have a witness for an hour. If that's the case, then there is only 18 minutes for the second round. I would suggest then, as part of that motion, that if there's only going to be 18 minutes for the second round, that the times be pro-rated so that everybody gets an equal opportunity and nobody gets left out in the second round.
It's the discretion of the chair.