Fisheries Committee on June 21st, 2011

[Lawrence MacAulay, Liberal, Cardigan, PE]

We're not opposed to that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

Mr. Weston.

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

I know we've already gone past it, but....

We could perhaps add a few words on official languages. If the committee agrees, we could circulate a document that has not been translated yet in the second official language. That would give the committee a bit more flexibility.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

As we say many times, the committee is the master of its own destiny; the committee can determine that at a specific point in time if there is a need to do that. You would need unanimous consent for the committee to distribute documents of that nature.

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

Okay, thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

All right. Back to working meals.

Mr. MacAulay, I believe you moved that.

[Lawrence MacAulay, Liberal, Cardigan, PE]

Yes, I did.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

Is there any discussion on the motion on working meals?

[Lawrence MacAulay, Liberal, Cardigan, PE]

What about the menu?

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

We'll get to that later.

(Motion agreed to)

The motion on witnesses' expenses from the previous Parliament reads that, if requested, reasonable travel, accommodation, and living expenses be reimbursed to witnesses, not exceeding two representatives per organization, and that in exceptional circumstances payment for more representatives be made at the discretion of the chair.

It is moved by Pat Davidson.

(Motion agreed to)

With regard to staff at in camera meetings, the motion from the previous Parliament reads that unless otherwise ordered, each committee member be allowed to be accompanied by one staff person at an in camera meeting, and in addition each party shall be permitted to have one party staff member attend in camera meetings.

Can I have a mover for that motion? Mr. MacAulay.

(Motion agreed to)

Mr. Vellacott.

[Maurice Vellacott, Conservative, Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, SK]

Just on that matter, I assume the staff are bound by the same rules of confidentiality at in camera meetings as the members are.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

That's correct, yes.

The next motion from the previous Parliament is on in camera meetings transcripts. The motion reads that one copy of the transcript of each in camera meeting be kept in the committee clerk's office for consultation by members of the committee.

Do I have a mover for that motion? Mr. Donnelly.

(Motion agreed to)

With regard to notice of motions, the motion this committee had from the previous Parliament was that 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 official languages.

Do we have a mover on that motion, or a suggestion? It is moved by Mr. Donnelly.

Mr. Kamp, do you have a comment?

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

I guess what the motion doesn't say is when the clerk will distribute the.... It says “be filed with the clerk and distributed to members in both official languages”.

Are we making the assumption that the clerk will not hang onto the motion and not give us the 48 hours' notice? That has happened in committees in the past; I don't think it was this one, as I recall.

If it's filed properly on a given business day, then we will see it that same business day.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

I guess what you're asking, Mr. Kamp, is when the 48 hours begins. Does it begin when it's distributed or when it's filed?

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

Well, we would like to see it for 48 hours.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

We can add a timeframe to this motion as well, if you wish, Mr. Kamp.

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

Yes. Perhaps we could amend the motion with another sentence that states, “Completed motions that are received by close of business shall be distributed to members on the same day.”

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

Rather than just say “close of business”, do you want to put a time on it, Mr. Kamp?

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

Do you have a suggestion?

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

The clerk is suggesting “by 5 p.m.”.

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

Okay.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

Because “close of business” could be open to discretion at that point, is what he's suggesting.

In other committees they have put a time on it.

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

Okay. I'm good with that.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

All right.

All those in favour of the amendment to the motion that was discussed, adding the timeframe that the motions would be distributed “no later than 5 p.m.”? This is the amendment, and we're defining the time as 5 p.m.

(Amendment agreed to)

We're now on the amended motion.

(Motion as amended agreed to)

On the allocation of time for questioning, in the previous Parliament the wording of this motion was 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 Democratic 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 all questioning be for five minutes.

Mr. Allen.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

A warm welcome to all our new committee members as well as our previous committee members. I'm not going to say “old”.

I have a couple of points, Mr. Chair.

I think we should have some discussion on this. Going back historically and seeing how the committee has worked, what I've often found is that sometimes we have two-hour meetings and sometimes we have hour meetings, and even though, in some cases, you do your best to split your time, I don't often find that all members get a chance to pose questions to witnesses.

I'd like to see a couple of principles. The first is that we set up the round of questioning such that all members have a chance to have a time slot. The second is how much time we have.

One of the things I'd like us to consider as part of the discussion on this is possibly splitting this into two components, the first one being the time, the time for the presenters to come and then the allocated time for the rounds, and then the second component of this is actual speaking order.

I think if we break this up into two components it might make the discussion a little bit easier, as opposed to muddying it all into one. In the first one we can talk about the rounds of questioning, if we want to have an opening round of ten minutes for the presenters to make their presentation, and then, after that, our questioning round. In the past we went ten minutes for the Liberal Party, seven minutes for the Bloc, five for the NDP, and ten for the Conservatives, I think it was. We might want to make that a little more uniform this time. Perhaps all parties could have seven minutes in that first round and then five-minute rounds after that. Or we could have the same kind of thing as before, where we'd have ten minutes for the official opposition, ten minutes for the government, and maybe seven minutes for the Liberals, starting out.

I think we should try to break this up into two components first. I would propose that we actually do that. And in the interest of perhaps keeping that easy, I guess I'll throw it open by proposing that we should break this up into two components before we start.