Evidence of meeting #4 for Citizenship and Immigration in the 39th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was five.
3:55 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Norman Doyle
I guess we will deal with the amendment before calling for a vote on the main motion.
Mr. Komarnicki.
3:55 p.m.
Conservative
Ed Komarnicki Conservative Souris—Moose Mountain, SK
My motion is to remove the words “and approval with amendment if necessary” from item two.
3:55 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Norman Doyle
It should then read: “That the government then submit these criteria to the Standing Committee for consideration.”
Is there any discussion on that?
Bill.
3:55 p.m.
NDP
Bill Siksay NDP Burnaby—Douglas, BC
I don't support the amendment, but if you're going to be consistent, number three needs to be amended as well, because it also mentions the committee-approved criteria.
4 p.m.
Conservative
Ed Komarnicki Conservative Souris—Moose Mountain, SK
The “committee-approved” would have to come out.
4 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Norman Doyle
Okay, well maybe we can deal with number 2, and if it doesn't carry on number 2, it certainly is not going to for number 3.
So all in favour of the amendment to the motion to remove “approval with amendment if necessary” in number 2.
(Amendment negatived)
4 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Norman Doyle
There's no need to go to number 3, and maybe if we don't have any further discussion on the motion, we can call for a vote on it.
(Motion agreed to)
4 p.m.
NDP
Bill Siksay NDP Burnaby—Douglas, BC
Mr. Chair, could I move that we report this to the House as our first report to the House?
4 p.m.
Some hon. members
Agreed.
4 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Norman Doyle
Okay, it shall be reported.
Now we'll go to our second motion. Mr. Wilson gave notice of motion:
That witnesses from an organization be given ten (10) minutes to make their opening statement; and that, at the discretion of the Chair, during the questioning of witnesses, there be allocated seven (7) minutes for the first questioner of each party and thereafter five minutes be allocated to each subsequent questioner of each party until all Members have had a chance to participate, after which, if time permits, a new round will commence.
Mr. Wilson, could you explain this a little bit further, especially the five minutes?
4 p.m.
Liberal
Blair Wilson Liberal West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC
It's pretty self-explanatory.
4 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Norman Doyle
I wondered about the five minutes being allocated. Is it to each individual?
4 p.m.
Liberal
Blair Wilson Liberal West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC
It is to each individual party, so it's just like the seven-minute round.
4 p.m.
Liberal
Blair Wilson Liberal West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC
It is not individual people. It's just that the government, the Conservatives, would have five minutes. The Liberal Party would have five minutes, the Bloc would have five, and the NDP would have five.
I know there is a slight skewing of an advantage to the NDP due to the number of seats in the House of Commons, but you know, we'd be splitting hairs to say that the Liberals could have six minutes and the Bloc could have five and the NDP could have four. I think in openness and fairness, it is an equitable arrangement to allow us all to share five minutes equally.
4 p.m.
Conservative
4 p.m.
Conservative
Ed Komarnicki Conservative Souris—Moose Mountain, SK
I don't want to get too technical about these things, but when I read that five minutes be allocated to each subsequent questioner of each party, I wondered if it wouldn't have been clearer to say “five minutes be allocated to each party” rather than “to each questioner of each party”, because there are four questioners in one party and four questioners in the other party. We want to be sure it's five minutes for each party. Is that reading it right if you delete the words “to each subsequent questioner” and say “five minutes be allocated to each party”?
4 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Norman Doyle
It gives the impression that it's each individual within the party.
4 p.m.
Liberal
Blair Wilson Liberal West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC
If you read it all together, again without a comma, then it's “each subsequent questioner of each party”. So a party has a questioner--
4 p.m.
Conservative
Ed Komarnicki Conservative Souris—Moose Mountain, SK
Okay, if it's a questioner, I guess that would be fair.
4 p.m.
Conservative
Barry Devolin Conservative Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON
I've always thought it was odd the way this was done in committees, how the time was allocated. Just so that I understand, currently, or the way it's been done in the past, time is allocated to each party. It can be one person, or that time can be shared among more than one member. Correct?
4 p.m.
Voices
Yes.