Industry Committee on May 9th, 2006

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

That's very reasonable to me. Is there any objection to that?

Do we have a mover for this? Mr. Fontana.

(Motion agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

Concerning transcripts of in camera meetings, Mr. McTeague moves the motion.

(Motion agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

The motion for notice of substantive motions is that 48 hours' notice be required. Basically this is to allow 48 hours.... The clerk can comment, but my understanding is that if, for example, a member of the committee sends an e-mail to the clerk, then the clerk would disperse it to the members, typically by e-mail, and then the 48 hours would start from the time at which that e-mail is sent to all of us. That's just so we have some time to review a motion before discussing it at committee.

Is there any discussion? Do we have a mover?

Mr. Lapierre moves the motion.

(Motion agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

Number 10 is the time limits for witnesses' statements and questioning. This, I understand, is based upon past practice in the industry committee. People can just read through that. Round one would be seven minutes each; the other three rounds would be five minutes each.

Obviously the unique thing about our committee is that we have an independent member of Parliament. I will make a suggestion, unless there are others who would like to make suggestions. My suggestion is that we not take time away from opposition, because I know opposition members obviously want opportunities to question, especially when ministers come before the committee. I thought we could have, in round three, the second Conservative Party slot allocated to Monsieur Arthur. That's my suggestion, which I'll put before the committee.

Monsieur Crête.

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

In my opinion, it is important for the recognized parties to have their turn to speak before the independent MP. I agree that he should be allowed to participate; that is quite acceptable. However, the NDP, which does not have very many opportunities to take the floor, is scheduled to have the floor in round four. In the House, the independent MP represents just 1 out of 308 ridings. He should not take precedence over those who make up 10, 15 or 20 per cent of all MPs. So it seems appropriate to me for the independent member to have the floor when the Conservative Party has its last turn, in round four.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Mr. McTeague.

[Dan McTeague, Liberal, Pickering—Scarborough East, ON]

The independent member would have to wait 57 minutes to ask a question. That would be practically at the end of the meeting, it seems to me. I know that it's often a matter of limiting the interventions of the witnesses. Perhaps we could have a clear agreement on the number of minutes given to each witness, in every situation.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Following on what Monsieur Crête said, I have a concern. Obviously we want the official parties to have the opportunity to speak. Monsieur Arthur was duly elected by the members of his constituency, and I think, as Mr. McTeague just pointed out, even leaving him at the end of round three would probably be at least in the hour period. If it's in round four, it's a bit unfair, in my view, in the sense that he may then never get an opportunity to ask a question, and I think that he, as a member of this committee, should be able to ask questions.

So, Mr. McTeague, are you suggesting round two?

[Dan McTeague, Liberal, Pickering—Scarborough East, ON]

At some point we can be flexible in this, but it is sort of etched in stone for now. It's not conceivable that he'll even be able to ask a question without the intervention of the chair, in certain circumstances, until witnesses have left, so the minimum has to be the third round. It seems to me that if you leave it any longer than that, at least one member of this committee may never have the opportunity to ask a single question.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Mr. Masse.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

I think it's important that Mr. Arthur have an opportunity to ask questions, but I would have to oppose. If we're running down on time, we would end up basically having the same time during that period, and I have a problem with that. If we had a spot moved up in front, then at least there would be a second round before that.

So that is a problem, because at that time there would be the same representation, which isn't the case in the House of Commons.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Mr. Fontana.

[Joe Fontana, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

The case could be made that all elected representatives of the people of Canada should have an opportunity to ask a question in the first two or three rounds. I guess it doesn't really matter at the end of the day; if we want a good working committee, we're all going to do some very good work, so at the end of the day I'm not sure that haggling over five or seven minutes is really going to cause a big difficulty.

I would probably suggest that the NDP get a position on round two and that in round three Mr. Arthur be given a position. If you want to take something away from the Conservative Party in round three, that's your discretion, but at the end of the day I'm not going to get hung up about five minutes for an extra member. Just to recognize what Brian said, moving the NDP up to round two and adding Mr. Arthur to round three would be in the spirit of all working together, and that could be accommodated.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

To respond to Mr. Masse's point, I would point out that my proposal of having Mr. Arthur in round three is actually forgoing a Conservative Party spot. It's not adding an independent spot; it's actually forgoing the Conservative Party's spot in favour of him. So the NDP would not be five minutes behind. That's just to clarify the point.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

I understand that logic, but that's your choice. The reality is it would bring a single independent up to a status equal to a political party. That alone is significant. Reflecting the number of seats that we have warrants a different scenario. I do appreciate the attempt you're making, but it is important that it be changed.

[Dan McTeague, Liberal, Pickering—Scarborough East, ON]

Mr. Chair, in terms of considering overall opportunities to make sure everybody has a fair and equal opportunity, however we define it, it may be helpful to drop the seven minutes to six minutes on the first round. That would provide more time on the next round to accommodate the New Democrats' Mr. Masse and

Mr. Arthur in round three.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Is that agreeable--six minutes on the first round?

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

On a trial basis, if it works out that I can get in a second round, then that's acceptable. The key to me is getting in the second round, because that's the breaking point, so to speak. I'm satisfied if it happens later on, as long as it happens. That's the critical issue for me.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

The proposal, then, is to drop round one to six minutes; to add the New Democratic spot to the second round, the end of the second round, for five minutes; and then to allow Mr. Arthur to take round three, the second Conservative spot. That's the proposal.

Mr. Masse.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

For clarification, do we then have one spot in round one and round two?

[An hon. member]

Yes.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Mr. Arthur, do you want to address speaking times?

[André Arthur, Independent, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Mr. Chairman, I am an independent MP and when I got here, it was made clear to me that the leadership of these proceedings lies with the political parties. That is a tradition that I respect, and I hope to be able to fit into the process. What you have just proposed to me is generous, and I hope that it will work for everyone. Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Mr. Crête.

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

I want to make sure I understand. The length of interventions on round one will be six minutes each and five minutes for the other two rounds, the NPD intervening at the end of the second round of questions and Mr. Arthur at the end of the third round of questions.

[A voice]

No, it would be the Conservative party's turn.

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

That's fine. I agree with that proposal. I don't want to turn this into a two-hour debate, but I think I'd like to move again that we have seven minutes on the first round. When Dan proposed six minutes, we didn't have the full picture. We gave more time to the NDP and we gave Mr. Arthur a chance to ask some questions. The first round is often an important time to canvass the general opinion of the witnesses. I don't want to get bogged down in procedure, but if everyone agrees, so much the better, and if not, we will simply stick with the six-minute time limit.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Mr. Carrie.