Evidence of meeting #1 for Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was chair.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Conservative
Niki Ashton NDP Churchill—Keewatinook Aski, MB
While I understand that this is the way the math adds up, the idea here is that we're putting forward what the procedure and House affairs committee adopted. Many committees are adopting the same.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bryan May
Just for clarification, because what I have in front of me says three minutes, are you suggesting that it should actually be two minutes in the final question?
Liberal
Dan Ruimy Liberal Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, BC
I'm just saying that it is part of the amendment as presented.
NDP
Niki Ashton NDP Churchill—Keewatinook Aski, MB
If I understood, you also said that this is what was adopted at the procedure and House affairs committee. But at that committee, three minutes was adopted.
Conservative
Bob Zimmer Conservative Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, BC
It's two minutes, by the 50-minute requirement.
NDP
Niki Ashton NDP Churchill—Keewatinook Aski, MB
Yes, but at the procedure and House affairs committee, it was three minutes.
NDP
Niki Ashton NDP Churchill—Keewatinook Aski, MB
We have it on good authority that at the procedure and House affairs committee, this is what was adopted: seven minutes for the first round, five minutes for everybody in the second round, and three minutes for us as the final questioner.
Conservative
Conservative
NDP
Niki Ashton NDP Churchill—Keewatinook Aski, MB
I think it's semantics, basically, but that is what the procedure and House affairs committee adopted.
Liberal
Filomena Tassi Liberal Hamilton West—Ancaster—Dundas, ON
With respect to the suggestion, it's not the timing so much as the order. I appreciate that you'd like the government to have the first spot. I have a couple of questions, though.
Outside of giving us that priority and having it set at seven minutes, what is the reason for changing the order as it is?
The other concern I have with respect to the NDP is that there are three minutes there, but with this revised order that the procedure and House affairs committee has suggested and adopted—and I understand it, but I don't think that just because somebody adopts something, everyone has to follow it. Outside of that, if you run out of time you're not going to get the three minutes; you're going to get two minutes. I understand that it often happens.
Could I hear from you, Mark, with respect to the order, because it has been changed as well as the numbers? Could I hear more about that?
Conservative
Mark Warawa Conservative Langley—Aldergrove, BC
The suggestion is to be consistent with the procedure and House affairs committee, if other committees are using it as a guide in order to be fair. That's the reason we are suggesting it: it's to be consistent with that committee.
We're fine with the original motion, but my amending motion was to be consistent with that committee. I'm okay with either.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bryan May
Are there any other questions at all?
We need to vote on the amendment first.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Do we want to open up discussion regarding...or shall we move to the next?
Conservative
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bryan May
We'll call the vote on the original motion.
(Motion agreed to)
MP Robillard.
Liberal
Yves Robillard Liberal Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC
For the distribution of documents, I move:
That only the clerk be authorized to distribute to the members of the Committee any documents, including motions, and that all documents which are to be distributed amongst the members must be in both official languages; and that the Clerk shall advise all witnesses appearing before the committee of this requirement.