Fisheries Committee on June 21st, 2011

[Lawrence MacAulay, Liberal, Cardigan, PE]

Why could you not just put the Liberal in one round before, and at least we'd have a chance for the second round, in the line of fairness? If the committee opposes that, I'm overruled, but just to be fair, even if I were second last before you repeated it three or four times--so if you put the NDP, Liberal, Conservative and then put the NDP in last, or the Conservative--I would at least get two kicks. It's eliminating the Liberal Party.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

To your point, Mr. MacAulay, Georges was doing some quick math here. You have 120 minutes in a two-hour meeting. If you take out 10 minutes for the presenters, if there is one presenter, then the first round should take 28 minutes and the second round to complete all members should take 40 minutes total. And you would get two questions. From the proposals on the floor, the Liberal Party would get 12 minutes of questions.

[Lawrence MacAulay, Liberal, Cardigan, PE]

Well, of course you know everything goes on beyond the time. And also, you have meetings that are one hour, and of course you'd go with the first round then and then the Liberal would be eliminated.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

Actually, when we had meetings that were one-hour meetings we generally only got one round if we had several presenters. So you would have one seven-minute question under this proposal; the NDP would have a seven-minute question, and the Conservatives would have 14 minutes in one round for a one-hour meeting.

[Lawrence MacAulay, Liberal, Cardigan, PE]

All I would ask is that you consider putting a Liberal in just in the line of fairness before you go five or six rounds. It's just too long. It eliminates the Liberal Party. Could you put it in just one slot before that, in the line of fairness?

And Mike, you can suggest it. Put it in somewhere before.

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

I'll make my motion and you can go from there.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

We have a motion on the floor that Mr. Allen presented that would provide for seven minutes in the first round and five minutes in the second and subsequent rounds.

Mr. Donnelly has amended that motion to call for ten minutes for the Conservative Party, ten minutes for the New Democratic Party, and seven minutes for the Liberal Party in the first round. The discussion was on the second and subsequent rounds, if I recall, taking us back to where we were.

Mr. Donnelly.

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

What we're looking at with time, if there is one presentation, is 10 minutes and then 28 minutes of questions in the first round and theoretically 40 minutes in the second round. That is 78 minutes. That is with one presenter.

I am curious. If we looked at last year and at how many committee meetings we had presentations, I don't recall there being many where we had only one presentation. Most had at least two, and sometimes there were up to six. So we would never get through this round if we had three presentations in 30 minutes. We would be lucky to get through the first half of the second round.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

That's correct. When you take the example of the last Parliament and what we did with multiple presentations, you're right when you say that. But if you break it up into one-hour meetings and have one or two presenters for the first hour and one or two presenters for the second hour, and you only get one round in each hour, then under Mr. Allen's proposal, or the amendment you are suggesting, Mr. Donnelly, the second and subsequent rounds would not come into play. Do you see what I'm saying?

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

Yes.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

I guess there would be more responsibility on the committee to determine how many presenters they want to bring forward and whether they want to bring forward one presenter or two presenters and how you want to structure the meetings. If you want to structure the meeting as a two-hour meeting, then you're going to get into the second and subsequent rounds. If you structure the meetings as one-hour meetings with one presenter--I'm assuming--then you would have the one round.

You get where I'm going on this.

It's up to the committee to determine how the meetings are going to be structured. It's going to determine how we get into this.

You used the example, Mr. Donnelly, of the previous Parliament. If you go back to it, there were probably very few when we got into second and subsequent rounds. You were the NDP member that had the benefit several times in the previous Parliament of what Mr. MacAulay was talking about. But it probably didn't happen that often that you got that benefit. You were in the first round, and you had your five minutes in that first round. It's all in how the committee structures the meetings.

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

Just to finish off the proposed amendment I put forward, instead of 28 in the first round it would be 17. So it would be a much shorter first round. I haven't done the math on the second round, but it would be 12....

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

That's where the order comes into play to determine how we go. Your suggestion in the amendment is a 10-minute first round for the Conservatives, 10 minutes for the NDP, and seven minutes for the Liberal Party. So it would be 27 minutes in the first round.

Mr. Allen's proposal is 28 minutes in the first round.

Go ahead, Mr. Allen.

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

I appreciate what Fin is saying. As part of how we manage this, all of us as members need to respect the fact and support you in the management of the time. We see some questions go on for four and a half minutes of a five-minute slot. It's five minutes for the question and the answer. In order for this to work and be fair to all members, we need to support you in your enforcement of that as well.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

I will admit guilt when it comes to enforcement of the times. That has been difficult. You make a good point that we had members who would ask their questions until the alarm went off to suggest the end of the time and then wait for the response. Then the response would sometimes take several minutes. I don't like to cut off our guests when they come in. As committee members, you know the time constraints we're under when we come here.

Anyway, you're right that when we set times in routine motions, they're the times allotted for questions and responses.

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

Are you calling the question on the amendment?

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

Sorry, I still have another speaker here, Mr. Vellacott.

Mr. MacAulay.

[Lawrence MacAulay, Liberal, Cardigan, PE]

This is a question for the chair.

Do you honestly believe that if you have professionals at the end and it goes to the beeper and the time limit, we're not going to allow them to answer? It has never happened.

That's where the time is eaten up. The committee is going to say—it's the master of its own destiny—we want to hear the response. A lot of times we want to hear the response because it will hopefully be a valuable response.

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

The questioner should get to the point and ask the question.

[Lawrence MacAulay, Liberal, Cardigan, PE]

My only concern is that a lot of things should be, but often they're not. That's my problem with the lineup.

I think there's a willingness here to try to accommodate me. If we could be put in a couple of slots earlier, it could be accommodated. It will be interesting to watch our chair monitor the time. He's a wonderful chairman, but I'll be surprised if he can keep it right on the time. It just does not happen.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

To your point, Mr. MacAulay, that's exactly why we tend to get in only one round in an hour meeting if we have a 10-minute presentation.

In the previous Parliament, with the order the way it was and the time allotments, there were only 32 minutes for our questions, as opposed to the proposal today for 28 and 27. Thirty-two minutes isn't a lot of difference, but in a 60-minute time slot we can only get the 10-minute presentation and one round of questions. We do tend to go over.

In this committee we're not as focused on the time as we are on trying to achieve something and garner some information from our witnesses. We ask them here to provide us with some knowledge and perspective.

Cutting them off is not something I really look forward to, as you said, when there are professionals here. We want to get the information we've asked them to come here to provide.

Mr. MacAulay.

[Lawrence MacAulay, Liberal, Cardigan, PE]

I need some guidance from you. Are we going through with the amendment and voting on the amendment to Mike's motion?

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

We would have to vote on the amendment first.

[Lawrence MacAulay, Liberal, Cardigan, PE]

I would like to propose an amendment to the amendment.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

So it would be a subamendment.