Fisheries Committee on Feb. 3rd, 2009

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

It's a subamendment, proposed by Mr. Allen, that would suggest that the subsequent round alternate between government and opposition until all members have had an opportunity to question. That was a subamendment moved by Mr. Allen.

Let's go back to the beginning. We read the initial motion--I'm not going to read it through again--as laid out in the 39th Parliament, and it was moved by Mr. MacAulay. Mr. Stoffer amended that original motion to read “that presentations be increased to 15 minutes and that the NDP questions increase to seven minutes”.

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

I will withdraw the 15 minutes and keep it at 10 minutes, because of the consensus of the committee.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

We have to deal with the subamendment first, correct?

[Mike Allen, Conservative, Tobique—Mactaquac, NB]

I have a point of clarification. I think there was one portion you might have left out. We might have handled that at the discretion of the chair. But to clarify, it is that all remaining members have the opportunity to question the witnesses, and all the questioning will be for a period of five minutes.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

That was your subamendment.

We have the original motion, moved by Mr. MacAulay. We have the amendment moved by Mr. Stoffer that presentations be increased to 15 minutes and that questions for the NDP be increased to seven minutes. Then we have the subamendment by Mr. Allen that the subsequent rounds of five minutes for each party alternate between government and opposition until all remaining members have had an opportunity to question.

Is that correct, Mr. Allen?

What we're going to deal with first is the subamendment moved by Mr. Allen.

(Subamendment negatived)

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

We'll have Mr. Van Kesteren.

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

Before we go on, Mr. Chair, to the next amendment, can we just have a quick discussion about a possible subamendment again?

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

Certainly.

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

Chair, where I moved to 15 minutes for the presentations, keep that at 10 minutes.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

I'm sorry to interrupt, gentlemen. We need the unanimous consent of the committee to amend Mr. Stoffer's amendment, to change it from 15 minutes per presentation to 10 minutes. Do we have unanimous consent? Thank you.

Go ahead, Mr. Van Kesteren.

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

I'd like to offer a subamendment.

Obviously the question here is of fairness. I think Mr. Kamp has reasonably argued that the composition of the government changed in the last election. And there is a real possibility....

I am new to this committee, and I'm glad to be here. This is going to be a great committee.

We normally have the seven minutes, so I'm somewhat puzzled by the period of time. I can see there is a real possibility that the government side will not have an opportunity to have a period of questioning. In the spirit of cooperation, I am offering a compromise.

Again, this 10 minutes is somewhat unique to this committee. Could we break from the traditional method of going on the second round from opposition to government, to continue the questioning from the government? We would then have the last round of questioning--to go directly to the government in the second round. I think it would definitely give us all an opportunity to question. I am proposing that the first round end with government, and the second round would begin with government and then go to opposition and government so that we can solve that problem.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

To clarify your subamendment, Mr. Van Kesteren, you're proposing that we amend after the first round, that the subsequent round would begin with the government, and then the rotation would be the same, except that all questioning would be for five minutes.

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

It would give us that opportunity to get that extra government side in. I think that's where the problem lies. It's a real possibility that on the government side we would not have the opportunity--

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

So the first round would end with the government party and the subsequent round would begin with the government party.

So that we're clear on the subamendment, for a subsequent round the rotation would be government, Liberal, Bloc, NDP, and all questioning would be for five minutes. Does that make sense?

[An hon. member]

No. Isn't the subsequent round to be opposition, government, opposition, government, opposition, government?

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

That subamendment was defeated.

My understanding is that if there is a subsequent round the rotation would begin with the government, so it would end with the Conservatives as well. The only change in the subsequent rotation would be that the government would lead off, and then the rotation is the same from there forward. Is that correct?

I'm going to get the subamendment and read it, and then we will continue on.

The wording for the subamendment, as moved by Mr. Van Kesteren, is that if there is a subsequent round, the rotation would be government, Liberal, Bloc Québécois, NDP, and government, and that all questioning be for five minutes. Does that make sense?

Mr. Blais.

[Raynald Blais, Bloc, Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC]

I have two or three comments to make. Firstly, I sort of have the feeling that I'm at the Olympics. I would therefore like to award the government party a gold medal for all of the effort it has made to change the formula in their favour. I fully understand their intentions, which I consider honourable. However, I still cannot agree to the changes that are currently being proposed.

There are two or three things that I'd also like to remind members of the committee of. When it is my turn to speak, I sometimes try and squeeze a little more than seven minutes from the chair. However, if I don't need my full seven minutes, I stop speaking. From time to time, I don't make any intervention, and skip my turn. However, more frequently than not, I would ask the chair to give me a little bit more time. If the chair agreed, I received a few more minutes, if not, my time was up. I'm able to tolerate the chair exercising a certain level of discretion. Obviously, as you know, when it came to discussing small craft harbours or the seal hunt, I had a hard time stopping. And I know we're going to hold these discussions again.

I have the impression that given the state of things now, we're going to have a difficult time coming to a reasonable compromise for everyone, because each time a small detail is altered, everything changes. It is as silly and straightforward as that. I, for one, believe that having a little bit more time could be useful, but I think it would be extremely difficult to get a consensus from members or even a majority agreement for my amendment to be adopted. I see that you're really bending over backwards. However, I don't have any other choice whatsoever than to try to understand, to the best of my ability, while showing openness, how you see this committee operating henceforth. However, I will point out that up until now, I have not seen any amendment formula that is satisfactory.

I also have the impression that we run the risk of running around in circles for a very long time if amendments to improve the formula are constantly being proposed. I'm simply going to continue opposing them. I don't know what other members of the committee are going to do, we shall see. I, for one, would simply like to point out that it is 12:35. We're talking about a formula for time allocation. This committee has not sat for seven months. There are topics that are more important than the one we are currently discussing and concern the future of our fisheries. Let's put an end to this scrambling around. I would be remiss not to call upon the will of members of this committee to collaborate so we can get down to real business.

As you know, the fishing sector is facing a crisis. Jobs have been lost, jobs are at stake. I know that we can have a candid discussion about time allocation but there comes a time when enough is enough. That is why I am asking members of the committee to show a spirit of cooperation.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

Mr. Bagnell.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I think that was very eloquently put, and I agree with everything the member said. And I think our lead on this side would agree just to stay with the status quo.

I do understand the opposition member's desire for everyone to have a chance to speak, and I hope that will usually be accommodated, even with the present rotation.

I know, though, that when we were in government, people were making the case that it was important for the opposition to get their concerns on the table. The government members, because they're part of the government normally creating the legislation in question, are, first of all, going to vote for it because they're in the government. Second, they have more chance for input, in caucus with their minister and their parliamentary secretary, into the development of the legislation, and so it is important to make sure that the opposition has sufficient time to at least get any critique they have onto the floor or questions they have on the legislation to witnesses.

The government has already, in theory, if they've done good policy development, asked all the questions they had to interest groups and experts before they proposed the legislation. If they haven't, then they haven't done good policy development.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

Mr. Weston.

[John Weston, Conservative, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Forgive me if my newness to this committee is reflected in the naiveté with which I ask the question.

It seems to me that the asking of questions is not just designed to support a position; it's also to bring out of a witness information that the government may be the most informed about and that should be on the table. So I'll be supporting the proposal of my colleague. In the event that it fails, I hope the chair will understand how critical it is for the government to get in its questions, be it at the beginning or at the end of the process.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

On the subamendment as moved by Mr. Van Kesteren, we would take the motion of the 39th Parliament and replace the bottom paragraph. After the words “Conservative Party”, we would add that if there is a subsequent round, the rotation would be government, Liberal, Bloc Québécois, NDP, and government for all questioning, and that all questioning be for five minutes.

Is that correct?

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

Is that talking about a third round or a second round?

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

That's for the second round or subsequent rounds. So it would say that if there is a subsequent round, the rotation would be government, Liberal, Bloc Québécois, NDP, and government, and all questioning would be for five minutes.

Does everybody understand the question? This is the subamendment as moved by Mr. Van Kesteren.

(Subamendment negatived)

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

Now we'll deal with the amendment as moved by Mr. Stoffer. By unanimous consent we removed the original 15 minutes for the presentations. Mr. Stoffer proposes that NDP questions move to seven minutes.

(Amendment negatived)