Fisheries Committee on June 21st, 2011

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I have two questions.

My first question is about the representatives. If I understand Mr. Allen's suggestion correctly, regardless of how many representatives there are, the company would get 10 minutes. Once again, I think we would like to have some flexibility to make changes.

Second, let us think of the three parties that are represented here and the fact that there are 11 people. I feel there would be a problem If not everyone was able to ask a question. That could be a problem for those who sit for two hours without having a chance to participate.

Could Mr. Allen tell us if he thought about the number of people?

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

Thank you, Mr. Weston.

Mr. MacAulay.

[Lawrence MacAulay, Liberal, Cardigan, PE]

I think we have to be careful. When presenters come, many times they've come here with the thought that two or three people were going to give a presentation. You've seen it, Rodney. The problem you have is when you have somebody coming from British Columbia to give a presentation and we tell them they cannot do it. I think we have to be very sure this is well explained if they're going to give ten minutes. I've seen it here where we have professional people sitting at the back. They've travelled thousands of miles, and to tell them they can't talk.... They have to be fully aware they've got ten minutes and have to divide it up, if we're going to cast this in stone.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

Good point, Mr. MacAulay. Thank you.

Mr. Vellacott.

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

I think rather than actually set that into our routine motions here in terms of how many witnesses you have, as I think you wisely suggested, Mr. Chair, depending on the nature of the material and the extent of detail, I think it would be better to get to that consensus or agreement as the topics come up. So for this one, really, having two is adequate, or for this one maybe we move on it quickly and we can do three or four.

I don't think you'd want to set that into your routine motions, in my humble opinion, but rather decide that case by case as you proceed.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

Thank you.

Anything further?

Mr. Allen.

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

Thank you. This is just a point of clarification. Lawrence is right. It's really bad if someone misunderstands what they're going to be doing. I think certainly the intent is if we invite an organization here, they would have ten minutes to present, each one of them. If they have two to three people in each organization here, each one won't get ten minutes, obviously, but the organization would get ten minutes. If they want to split that between them, that's fine. Maybe it should say “from any one organization” or “the witnesses from each organization”, or something like that.

I hear what you're saying. Each organization that's invited should get ten minutes.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

All right. I think we're all in agreement on the ten minutes per organization. That makes sense. It has to be clearly defined to them before they come that they have ten minutes. If they have several presenters, they would have to divide that ten minutes up if they're from the same organization.

But if we invite two or maybe three organizations, there would be ten minutes per organization. I just want to make sure I understand clearly what the proposal is before us. So a ten-minute opening statement is what we're looking for.

Mr. Allen, you did make a formal motion. I'll ask you to read it again.

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

Sure: prove that I can read.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

It's just so I'm clear on it here.

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

He's putting the test that I can actually read.

Okay. So it would read as follows: that the witnesses from any one organization shall be allowed ten minutes to make their opening statement. During the questioning of witnesses, there shall be allocated seven minutes for the first round of questioning, and thereafter, five minutes shall be allocated to each questioner in the second and subsequent rounds of questioning.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

Mr. Donnelly, you propose an amendment to that motion?

[Fin Donnelly, NDP, New Westminster—Coquitlam, BC]

That's right.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

Could I ask you to state the amendment?

[Fin Donnelly, NDP, New Westminster—Coquitlam, BC]

The amendment is that it be ten for the Conservatives, ten for the New Democrats, and seven for the Liberals.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

For the first round.

[Fin Donnelly, NDP, New Westminster—Coquitlam, BC]

For the first round, yes.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

What about the second and subsequent rounds in Mr. Allen's motion? Are you suggesting an amendment to just the first part?

[Fin Donnelly, NDP, New Westminster—Coquitlam, BC]

So the subsequent would be five....

Well, I think in keeping, then, I would suggest six, six, and four.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

Okay.

Is there discussion on the amendment?

Mr. Allen.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I know I wanted these broken up, but I think in the spirit of what we're trying to do here.... One of the other principles I'm hoping to achieve here is to give everybody a crack at stuff before we keep going around. And I'm going to propose a change in the speaking order as well.

At the end of the day, I think if we keep it at seven minutes, there would be.... As I would see it, there would be four questioners in the first round, keeping it clean at seven minutes. But if we also keep to the principle that everybody is going to get on, and there will be a five-minute slot for all 11 members, or at least there will be a slot for all members, then I don't think we have to have that big first round like we used to have before.

As I think we probably all know, splitting our time doesn't work out very well. When you have a five-minute round and you say you're going to split your time, typically that second person gets only the last 30 seconds for a question. Things go pretty quickly in a five-minute round.

So I would suggest that we try to keep it consistent so that everybody gets seven in the first round, and then we can get agreement on what that first round is.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

Mr. MacAulay.

[Lawrence MacAulay, Liberal, Cardigan, PE]

I would agree with the seven minutes as long as all parties have the five on the second round. I think it's only fair. That's the way we've worked here over the years, so hopefully that can happen--in the spirit of cooperation.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

Mr. Donnelly, do you have a comment?

[Fin Donnelly, NDP, New Westminster—Coquitlam, BC]

Yes, Mr. Chair.

Maybe Mike could explain a little bit about how it would work. I know it's getting off the motion and into the next proposal, but that might shed some light on how this would be an even distribution of the time allocation.