Indigenous and Northern Affairs Committee on Feb. 4th, 2016

[The Chair, Liberal, Andy Fillmore]

Is there any discussion on that one? I see none. Is it the pleasure of the committee to adopt the motion?

[Mike Bossio, Liberal, Hastings—Lennox and Addington, ON]

I'm sorry, but there was something raised earlier this morning in another committee that I was at.

I guess some people can bring in documents if it's at the last minute and they have difficulty getting translation services for the documents. The committee this morning said that it would have it so that all documents had to be in both languages or they would be rejected, except in emergency situations where the committee decides that it wants to see those documents because they are very relevant to the discussion taking place.

I guess I'd like to throw that out there. Does the committee agree with that as well?

[The Chair, Liberal, Andy Fillmore]

Charlie.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

I believe it is important to maintain the respect of our country's both official languages. That is very important for Parliament.

[The Chair, Liberal, Andy Fillmore]

I don't see a sense for that one, Mike. I think we'll just ask for the committee's feeling on the motion as written in that case. Is there any further discussion on that? Is it the will of the committee to adopt it as written—

Jim? I beg your pardon.

[Jim Eglinski, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

I just wanted to mention that at the earlier meeting that Mr. Bossio was speaking about, it is at the discretion of the chair, I believe, and the group can agree on it at that particular time if a certain circumstance comes up. It doesn't need to be a motion. It can be voted on that day, and the group can decide as a group that they want to get that evidence in.

[The Chair, Liberal, Andy Fillmore]

That sounds good, Jim.

As I understand it, unanimous consent would be needed, but I agree with Charlie. It's important that our stated rules require that evidence be in two languages. We can always have a common-sense approach if there's unanimous consent.

Charlie.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

I want it clear that it requires unanimous consent as opposed to being voted on; otherwise, we could start to very much undermine how the committees work.

[Jim Eglinski, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Liberal, Andy Fillmore]

Agreed. Thank you.

The next routine motion is “Working Meals”.

Don.

[Don Rusnak, Liberal, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

I move:

That the Clerk of the Committee be authorized to make the necessary arrangements to provide working meals for the Committee and its subcommittees.

[The Chair, Liberal, Andy Fillmore]

Is there any discussion on that motion?

(Motion agreed to)

The next is “Witnesses' Expenses”.

Mike.

[Michael McLeod, Liberal, Northwest Territories, NT]

I move:

That, if requested, reasonable travel, accommodation and living expenses be reimbursed to witnesses, not exceeding two (2) representatives per organization; and that, in exceptional circumstances, payment for more representatives be made at the discretion of the Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Andy Fillmore]

Is there any discussion on that one? I see none.

(Motion agreed to)

Next is “Staff at In Camera Meetings”.

Gary.

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge Park, ON]

I move:

That, unless otherwise ordered, each committee member be allowed to be accompanied by one staff person at an in camera meeting.

[The Chair, Liberal, Andy Fillmore]

Is there any discussion?

(Motion agreed to)

Next is “In Camera Meetings Transcripts”.

Don.

[Don Rusnak, Liberal, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

I move:

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.

[The Chair, Liberal, Andy Fillmore]

Thanks, Don. Is there any discussion on that one?

I see none. Is it the pleasure of the committee to adopt the motion?

(Motion agreed to)

The next is “Notice of Motions”.

Mike.

[Michael McLeod, Liberal, Northwest Territories, NT]

Mr. Chairman, I move:

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.

[The Chair, Liberal, Andy Fillmore]

Is there any discussion? I see none.

(Motion agreed to)

The final motion is on “Questioning of Witnesses”.

Mike Bossio.

[Mike Bossio, Liberal, Hastings—Lennox and Addington, ON]

I move that the witnesses from an organization be given up to ten minutes, at the discretion of the chair, to make their opening statement; on the rotation of time, for round number one, the first questioner would be Conservative for six minutes, second, Liberal for six minutes, third, NDP for six minutes, fourth, Liberal for six minutes; for the second round, the first questioner would be Liberal for six minutes, second, Conservative for six minutes, third, Liberal for six minutes, fourth, Conservative for five minutes, and fifth, NDP for three minutes, for a total of 50 minutes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Andy Fillmore]

Is there any discussion on this motion?

Charlie.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

I'm looking at the motions that were passed by the previous Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development, as well as PROC, which had seven minutes in the first round. I don't know where the six minutes came from. In my experience, we haven't had six minutes.

I think it's a mistake to go to six minutes from seven minutes because of what you're trying to establish with witnesses in the first round. That is where a lot of the substantive stuff is broken down and figured out. Then people follow up in the next round. If you don't have that time to go through it in representing your party with the witness, I don't believe you'll get the kind of positive results we've had.

I've also noticed that the way my colleagues the Liberals have set this up, it certainly gives us the raw deal at the end, where we're down to three minutes. I've never been on a committee where the third party was given three minutes to speak. There was always a mandatory minimum of five minutes.

What I see from the previous round is “seven (7) minutes for the 1st round of questioning and thereafter five (5) minutes shall be allocated”. Then the order is broken down according to government, official opposition, and NDP. This seems to be shortchanging on the intent of making us a committee that works in the interests of all members.

[The Chair, Liberal, Andy Fillmore]

Thanks, Charlie.

Is there any further discussion?

[Mike Bossio, Liberal, Hastings—Lennox and Addington, ON]

This was devised in the spirit of fairness, of trying to balance the representation that exists within Parliament, to make it fair to all of the parties in the time allotted to them to ask questions.

You can look at the official status. There are 327 MPs. Of them, 184 are Liberals. They represent 56.3% of the House. The Conservatives represent 30.3%, and the NDP represents 13.5%. Under the proposed time and speaking rotation, the Liberals are now going to have 48% of the time allotted. The Conservatives will have 34% versus their 30% of the representation, and the NDP will have 17% of the time versus 13% of the representation.

Like I said, we're trying to reach that balance, that fairness. We're trying to give.... As well, we thought that in giving the NDP the last voice in the proceedings.... Once again, we're trying to balance that. Yes, it is less time, but in the past, that last block would probably have been divided up more in line with the Conservatives and the Liberals having the majority of that time between them and the other party potentially not having any. We've broken it up into five blocks so we could try to achieve that.