I so move.
Evidence of meeting #1 for Fisheries and Oceans in the 39th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was chair.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Evidence of meeting #1 for Fisheries and Oceans in the 39th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was chair.
A recording is available from Parliament.
4:05 p.m.
Conservative
4:05 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Fabian Manning
On notice of motions, the proposed wording isthat 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 officiaI languages.
4:05 p.m.
Conservative
4:10 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Fabian Manning
We keep the best until last: allocation of time for questioning. That's on the back of your sheet. Does everybody have it?
That witnesses from an organization be given ten minutes to make their opening statement; and that, at the discretion of the chair, during the questioning of witnesses there be allocated ten minutes for the first questioner of the Liberal Party, seven minutes for the first questioner of the Bloc Québécois, five minutes to the questioner of the New Democratc Party, and ten minutes for the first questioner of the Conservative Party; and that if there is a subsequent round, the rotation be the same, except that all questioning be for five minutes.
4:10 p.m.
Conservative
4:10 p.m.
Conservative
Randy Kamp Conservative Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—Mission, BC
Let me just point out, Mr. Chair, that although I know we followed this practice in the past, it has occurred to me in the past as we folllowed this practice that it certainly doesn't meet some of our objectives. It doesn't necessarily allow every member of the governing party to have a shot at it, and if you compare the amount of time in a normal two-hour meeting that any one member of either the Liberal Party or the Conservative Party has compared with Mr. Stoffer, as the only representative of the NDP, and if they have a five-minute opportunity in every round and Mr. Stoffer takes that five-minute opportunity, which he normally does, he might well have 15 minutes in a meeting when some of our members might not have any.
As well, of course, if you look at the percentages compared with representation in the House—which I think is one of the goals we try to approximate, at least—this approach, with the amount of time both the Bloc and the NDP get, is nowhere near the representation in the House.
I think we should open it up for reconsideration. I know many other committees take a different approach to this in order to address some of these concerns I have raised.
4:10 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Fabian Manning
Do you want to move an amendment or are we going to discuss first?
Okay, Mr. Stoffer.
4:10 p.m.
NDP
Peter Stoffer NDP Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS
I remember when I was on the defence committee, we had ten, ten, and ten. The NDP had fourteen seats and we had ten minutes in the opening question period, and nobody seemed to worry about it back then. The reality is there's nothing stopping the Conservative side from splitting their ten minutes to go five and five. They usually have four members show up, and by the end of the day each and every one of them can have their five, or even more, minutes.
I've been on this committee now for ten consecutive years and I've never seen wanting of a question from the government side, especially when the Liberals were here.
So no, I like it just the way it is, thank you very much.
4:10 p.m.
Conservative
Randy Kamp Conservative Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—Mission, BC
Mr. Chair, under the current arrangement, Mr. Stoffer—the NDP, in fact—would get 20% of the questioning time, all of that by one member. The fact that we might be able to divide up our opening ten-minute block so that each of us gets five minutes— None of us is going to get fifteen, which is what Mr. Stoffer gets at every meeting. To me there's something wrong with that, and that's why other committees, in subsequent rounds—I know you can point to committees that might have equal tens on the opening rounds, but you can be sure they don't maintain that equality in subsequent rounds. Most do not.
So I'd like to hear some suggestions for a change. I can make one, if you like.
4:10 p.m.
Conservative
Ken Epp Conservative Edmonton—Sherwood Park, AB
For what it's worth, I've seen different patterns over the years that I've been here, but I do remember way back in 1993 when I first came here—well, I guess we didn't start committee meetings until 1994—there were a few committees that I substituted on or attended where they actually just went back and forth all the time. It was opposition—and always the opposition started. I remember that, because in the finance committee I was the point guy for our party, so whenever there were witnesses I had to really work because I had the first opportunity for questions. I had to listen, unlike some other members who were reading the paper, and then I asked the first question. Then it went to the government, and then back to the opposition, and always back and forth, with a rotation between the members. Of course, on the government side, they could choose whoever they wanted to take their slot when it came. They made that arrangement among themselves.
It's a little more difficult on the opposition side, where you have the different parties and there would have to be some way of allocating those. My suggestion would be to have it in proportion to the number of members on the committee. Basically what would happen is you'd all get an equal share as members of Parliament, and I think that's good. Committees ought to work that way. There's a certain amount of partisanship that's unavoidable, but at the same time in committee work we do really try, as members of Parliament, to do what's good for the country and for our constituents and for the issues the committee is seized with.
So that's what I would recommend—as an outsider here today, a substitute for Mr. Keddy. That was my experience and it worked very well.
Thank you.
4:15 p.m.
Liberal
Gerry Byrne Liberal Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte, NL
I think we could probably resolve the principle of this in a lengthy discussion, if we so chose, but until there's something concrete in terms of an alternative on the table for us to discuss, I really don't get the sense that anyone on this side of the table is necessarily.... There seems to be an interest in what was previously established by the committee. I think those on this side of the table would be interested to hear a concrete alternative, but in the absence of anything specific, I'd rather call the question.
4:15 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Fabian Manning
Okay.
Mr. Kamp, you raised the issue. Would you like to make an amendment?
4:15 p.m.
Conservative
Randy Kamp Conservative Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—Mission, BC
Yes, I would, and I think it depends on whether we're trying to fill an hour or two hours. Often we do have meetings split into two, so let's assume we're trying to fill a rotation for an hour, including some time for witnesses' presentations.
That being said, I think in our May meeting our motion read that the presenter would have up to fifteen minutes, and I think we're talking about ten here. That aside, we could have a rotation something like seven minutes for the Liberals, five for the Bloc, five for the NDP, seven for the Conservatives. And then the next round would be five for each from the Liberal, the Bloc, and the Conservatives. Then a following round would be, say, four minutes for the Liberals, four minutes for the Conservatives. That is generous for the Liberals; it gives them sixteen minutes in that round. The Conservatives get sixteen minutes, the Bloc ten minutes, the NDP five, with the relevant percentages as well, which I can share with you. That, with the presentation time, would be about an hour.
If we had a two-hour meeting, we'd have to figure out what we would do, perhaps, to start that whole rotation over again. That might be one way to do it.
4:15 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Fabian Manning
To make sure I'm clear—and that doesn't mean everybody else will be clear—what Mr. Kamp is proposing here, as I understand it, is for a one-hour block of a meeting—let's use that—with a ten-minute presentation. Is everybody clear on that one?
There would be two sets of questions around the table. The combination of those questions will give sixteen minutes to the government, sixteen minutes to the Liberals, ten minutes to the Bloc, and five minutes to the NDP, for a total of 47 minutes. There's a total of 57 minutes for your hour.
4:15 p.m.
Liberal
4:15 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Fabian Manning
Yes. Sixteen minutes for the government, sixteen for the Liberals, ten for the Bloc, and five for the NDP, for a total of 47 minutes, and ten minutes for the presentation, which is 57 minutes.
Mr. Simms.
4:15 p.m.
Liberal
Scott Simms Liberal Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL
Mr. Chair, I would suggest at this point, understanding the numbers, and I think we understand the issues as we've gone through this before, can we please put the amendment to a vote and then get to the main motion?
