Fisheries Committee on Feb. 3rd, 2009

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

Generally what we have done is that if you have six different organizations representing an umbrella group, not all six are going to speak. What would happen is the head spokesperson would speak, and possibly someone else would match the time, or generally they'd split that time. They don't speak for an hour and then we question for an hour; they generally keep it down to a fairly good time limit.

From what I've seen recently, when there are multiple groups here, all the chairs are very good at allocating the specific time and narrowing it down to a focus.

But I do have another point to make with my colleague Mr. Calkins.

Sir, you also get 10 minutes. Your party starts off with 10 minutes. There's absolutely nothing stopping your first presenter from sharing the time with another colleague. I've seen that done in many other committees. You get 10 minutes, and how you divide those first 10 minutes is your business. So there's no reason your lead person couldn't ask a couple of questions and then split the time with another colleague, then every single one of you could get the time that you have. You don't have to keep it to one person for 10 minutes; you can split that time. And that would show the respect that you've asked for in offering those questions.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

Mr. MacAulay.

[Lawrence MacAulay, Liberal, Cardigan, PE]

Of course, here we are again right back at the same discussion we've had for the last...well, at least the last time we put the committee together, if not the time before. The fact is that the way this has been set up has worked reasonably well. The truth is that if we bring more than one presenter in, sometimes it happens, yes. The chair does their best, but what can happen and why this was put in place the way it is right now is to make sure that members of Parliament.... As Mr. Calkins has indicated, we're all members of Parliament and we have a legitimate responsibility to ask questions. But if most of it is given to the presenter, and there's no dialogue back and forth....

I recall this was put together this way because we had so many problems with not having enough time. There's never enough time to ask questions. But the fact is that the way it is right now has worked pretty well. Everybody wants a little more time. I've certainly sat here and needed to ask very important questions that could not be asked because we ran out of time, but there is a limited time.

So I agree that we leave it as it is.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

Mr. Weston.

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

I see those magical words “subject to the discretion of the chair” in the second section. It seems to me that we can accomplish all our objectives by putting those words in the first part too, so it says “subject to the discretion of the chair, the witnesses from an organization be given ten minutes”.

The rule would be ten minutes, but if it were the consensus of the room, or the chair thought an individual needed more time to present, it could be extended. I think it's good to give presenters the notion that less is more when they come and they have only 10 minutes to get their message across. Then in the spirit of equality, giving your party seven minutes makes sense.

I would give the chair the discretion to extend the time from ten minutes, but go along with Mr. Stoffer's suggestion of seven.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

Monsieur Blais.

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

This is based on the fact that there's no perfect formula for sharing time. There is a domino effect with this issue. If we change anything, if there has been no prior discussion each one of the political parties, it will be difficult to satisfy everyone. The current formula is not perfect, but it is acceptable, in light of how it's been used in the past. This is why I am more in favour of maintaining the status quo.

On the other hand, I would add, as Mr. Weston has just stated that, I've had several opportunities to preside over question period, etc. It's true that a chronometer is used, but some members were able to benefit from one or two additional minutes.

Therefore, the chair must be granted discretion. It seems that our native New Brunswicker, Mr. Weston, has proven himself to be flexible. We simply have to frame this formula, which is not perfect, I concede, but we need some sort of guiding principle. I think that the 10, 7, 5, and 10 minutes for the government party formula, and five minutes for each party during the second round, is fine. What is left is deciding how much discretion we want to leave the chair, which we can decide on once we put things into practice. He looks like a nice guy, I don't think there should be any problems.

I wish to extend to him my congratulations and assure him of my full cooperation so that our work here is as positive as possible. There's a way to deal with our friend Peter's perseverance, who invariably asks for more time. The current format is balanced, even though it would appear difficult to accept in certain situations. Despite this, I think it has served us relatively well in past Parliaments.

For that reason, I believe that we should keep the status quo.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

Thank you.

Mr. Kamp.

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

Well, I understand the comments that this has worked reasonably well, but Parliament has changed; its composition changes. And when that happens, we ought to take a look at whether the rotation and speaking times make sense.

What's currently proposed is that the Liberals would have three members—let's assume there are just those two rounds, as we've specified—and two out of the three Liberal members would have a chance to question. If they split their time, it would be three out of three. And they get 15 minutes in total in those two rounds.

For the Bloc, two out of two would get a chance to question the witnesses, for a total of 12 minutes.

For the Conservatives, they'd have two out of five questioners. If we split, we can go to three out of five, and we get 15 minutes.

None of this is reflecting the proportion, certainly, in Parliament. I hope we're clear on that. I can give you the percentage if you'd like.

For the NDP, not only is it not one out of one, but this one member would speak twice. Nobody else gets that opportunity.

If we go along with this proposal to increase his first round to seven minutes, then he gets 12 minutes, the same as the Bloc, and it would certainly be well out of proportion with their standing in the House and this committee.

So we're going to get at least two members who don't get a chance to speak in those two rounds, no matter what we do. To me, I'm having a hard time understanding why that makes sense to you and why we don't need to rejig this in some way.

In fact, I thought the better approach would be to give every party seven minutes in the first round, and then we would alternate government and opposition members in the subsequent rounds, with the length of questioning at the discretion of the chair—perhaps five minutes, perhaps four minutes—and go Liberal, Conservative, Bloc, Conservative. And if there's time, we'd finish off with the Conservative members who haven't had a chance to ask a question or two. That seemed to me to be fair. It's proportional.

But the status quo, to me, doesn't seem fair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

Mr. Calkins.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

I'm going to pass.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

You're going to pass? All right.

Mr. Stoffer.

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

If we've agreed to keep the witnesses at 10 minutes, with the discretion of the chair to allow someone who has difficulty presenting, if they're nervous or something, a few more minutes, that would be fine.

But if we go this way—and I think I concur with Mr. Kamp in this regard, in the spirit of cooperation—and have a Liberal, Bloc, NDP, Conservative member in the first round, I'd still like to see seven minutes for this side. Secondly, it would go five minutes Liberal, Conservative, Bloc, Conservative, New Democrat, Conservative; and that way they would all get a chance to speak, and we would all get the second round.

We did that in the defence committee, when I was there before. That's how we did it, and it worked out very well. I think that way all of them would get an opportunity to speak in the second round, in an alternating fashion.

Obviously, if there's a third round, which sometimes happens if it's a quiet day, it could happen that way.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

Thank you.

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

That goes with what Mr. Kamp was saying.

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

Sort of, except you'll notice I didn't mention the NDP in the second round.

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

Yes, I noticed that.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

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

I thought you might, but I was hoping you wouldn't, because it still leaves one of our members unable to speak.

I think that in the second round we would have to specify, however we do the second round, that the chair needs to, rather than just starting out with five, five, five, or however we do it.... What has happened in the past, of course, is that because the Conservatives are last in that round, as under the status quo, it would often never get to us. So it not only made it even more unequal, but....

Anyway, I like the idea of everyone getting seven minutes in the first round, and then alternating between the government and the opposition. If the committee wants to put the NDP in that second round, per Peter's suggestion, I guess that's up to the committee. But I think it should be alternating between the government and opposition, or the opposition and government, I guess.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

All right.

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

On a point of order, I'm confused. Actually what we're voting on--

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

That's what I'm going to try to straighten out here.

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

I don't know, Mr. Chair, if you can break up these things so that we can first deal with the first phrase, for which I think there's some consensus, and then get to the second part.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

I'm going to try to get it all straightened out here, because we can't accept a third subamendment. Basically, we'll deal with what we have here first, and then we'll go to further business on this motion.

What we have to deal with first is a subamendment, and I'm looking to the clerk for guidance here. It's a subamendment, proposed and moved by Mr. Allen, that suggests that the subsequent round alternate between government and opposition until all members have had an opportunity to question.

Are we all clear on what we're voting on, on what the question is at this time?

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

Can you run it by me again?