Evidence of meeting #2 for Industry, Science and Technology in the 39th Parliament, 2nd 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
Bruce Stanton Conservative Simcoe North, ON
I'll look that up, and if I find an example, I will have to—
Conservative
The Clerk of the Committee Ms. Michelle Tittley
In general, the rules governing process in the chamber also apply to committees, with notable exceptions. I can provide you with some references to that after the meeting, if you'd like.
In terms of dealing with motions, it is up to the committee to decide how it deals with its own motions. At this point, there is no order paper or notice paper for committees. It's up to the committee to decide whether those motions remain or, as this new motion might suggest, are abandoned.
Conservative
Bruce Stanton Conservative Simcoe North, ON
Yes. It really is the former, then.
Thank you very much for that clarification.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
All those in favour of “Motions deemed to be abandoned”, please signify.
(Motion negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
In the new package, I think there are two that deal with “Rounds of Questioning” and “Speaking Order”. In the old one, we have “Allocation of time for questioning”.
Can we deal with “Rounds of Questioning” first?
Mr. Carrie, if you want to.... I think the speaking order is the more contentious point.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
—for the first round, and then the latter rounds would remain at five minutes.
Conservative
Colin Carrie Conservative Oshawa, ON
Yes. In the last session we had quite a lot of meetings where there were one plus one. By going to seven minutes, the idea here would be to get everybody through the first round. They get 28 minutes as opposed to the six minutes. So, basically, a wording....
Liberal
Dan McTeague Liberal Pickering—Scarborough East, ON
Chair, I am probably feeling the most contentious about this, and I understand the template that has been given in other committees.
Mr. Carrie, myself, Mr. Van Kesteren, and Mr. Arthur were all here at the initial new meeting, when we sat—correct me if I'm mistaken—I think it was in March or April of 2006. What we tried to do at the time was to hammer out something that was unique and different from other committees, given the unique circumstances of this committee, the presence of Mr. Arthur, and, of course, dealing with the low number of questions that the New Democratic Party would have.
The Liberal Party gave one of its positions away and the Conservative Party gave up one of its positions as well. We changed the time as well, so that everyone, in effect, could get a question in. I think that helped us build consensus in at least two reports, and it's probably one of the highlights of the nature in which this committee has worked in a very cooperative fashion. I would hate to see a template for problems in other committees imposed or presented that would untangle what I thought I was a fairly important and successful routine for us.
I would ask Mr. Carrie, or anyone else who thinks that these two motions could work, to demonstrate to me where our rounds of questioning here have not worked. I thought we really emphasized the spirit of cooperation and accommodation that I think we've all made--certainly the one and two parties in representation here--to both the independent and to time, and that mix has worked very well for us. So I would make a friendly proposal that we abandon both the rounds of questioning and speaking order provisions in favour of what we already have, which has worked very, very well for this committee.
November 15th, 2007 / 10:30 a.m.
Conservative
Conservative
Colin Carrie Conservative Oshawa, ON
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
Again, I appreciate the previous session and the cooperation, but I would remind Mr. McTeague that we actually did have quite a contentious issue. Under the old way, in the first two rounds everybody got to speak twice, except for the independent. Because we believed that everybody on the committee was equal and should have an opportunity to speak, we were often in the position, as the government party, to give a speaking position to the independent, Mr. Arthur, because he did have some very significant things to offer the committee. Because of the one-hour meetings that we quite often did have, he wouldn't have had that opportunity unless the government had given up a speaking position. You can argue back and forth as to whether that's fair or not, but if Mr. McTeague remembers, the Bloc Québécois did have an issue with that, the Conservative Party giving a speaking position to the independent.
If you have the sheet in front of you and you do round one for seven minutes and round two for five minutes, round one would add up to 28 minutes and round two would add up to 20 minutes. That would allow everyone to speak at least once. The independent would be speaking less, of course, but in the old way, if you added the two scenarios, it came to 49 minutes.
So the idea of the round was not to in any way impair the uniqueness of the committee, but it was to enshrine the ability of the independent to speak. Because of the nature of our witnesses and because we do have a lot of work to do, it would allow him at least once in the two rounds to have the right to speak and contribute to the committee.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
Okay, thank you.
I have Madam Brunelle, Ms. Nash, and Mr. McTeague.
Bloc
Paule Brunelle Bloc Trois-Rivières, QC
I had not raised my hand, Mr. Chairman, but I would be pleased to say a few words.
It seems to me that our way of working was quite appropriate. It seems that there are many disagreements. We can see that Mr. Arthur harbours some resentment. I therefore do not really want to reopen this debate.
As far as speaking time, statements and questions from independent members are concerned, we can take our inspiration from what happens in the House of Commons. We can see that it is a party system and that parties have priority when it comes to taking the floor. I think it would be best to continue to work as we have in the past. We had an agreement and it worked well.
NDP
Peggy Nash NDP Parkdale—High Park, ON
Again, I'm told that this is a committee that has worked very well together in a spirit of collegiality and respect, so I'm a little surprised that a proposal would be made that effectively cuts the speaking time of our party almost in half. I don't see it as constructive, and I am obviously opposed to it.
Liberal
Dan McTeague Liberal Pickering—Scarborough East, ON
Chair, I just want to continue to reinforce the fact that if we were to use the template not used in this committee but used by other committees in terms of speaking times, allocation-wise it would see the independent go from about—and I can do percentages or minutes as you wish—5.618% of the time or five minutes in two hours, or to 10% or 10 minutes.
I see here a couple of pitfalls. One, in terms not necessarily of this committee, but generally speaking, overall the Conservative time in terms of questions would go from 26 minutes to 32 minutes and the Liberals would go from 26 minutes to 27 minutes. The big loser in this, regrettably, is the NDP, which would go from 16 minutes down to 12 minutes.
I think we should leave well enough alone. I will leave it at that. I think the way it has stood here is both unique and very precious. I'd prefer that we not use this as a template. There has rarely been an occasion, to my knowledge, certainly from our party...where I think on some occasions, to have Mr. Arthur speak, we've been very accommodating as well. I think I'd like to keep that, respecting the fact that the Conservatives have removed a member to allow Mr. Arthur, I believe, to constitute one of the five on committee.
Conservative
Conservative
Dave Van Kesteren Conservative Chatham-Kent—Essex, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. McTeague, you pointed out the point that I was going to make, that we have removed a member to accommodate Mr. Arthur. Notwithstanding, he has proven to be a very valuable asset to this committee, and I think we've all grown to love and admire our colleague.
And we did have, as Mr. Colin so rightfully pointed out, some difficulties at the last session. That did cause some concern.
The two recommendations on the rounds of questioning and the speaking order address those concerns. We feel it is important that Monsieur Arthur has his input. As I said, it has proven to be very valuable in the past, and I'm sure it will be very valuable in the future too.
As Madam Brunelle pointed out, it is true that independents don't have the party recognition, but committees are somewhat different from what takes place in Parliament. Committees are where the real work is done, where acts are dissected, where reports are made, and I think it behooves us that we have all members contribute to that. I think in lieu of the fact that we have three members on this committee, Monsieur Arthur is definitely a valuable asset.
I think it accommodates what we're trying to do as a committee. We do feel very strongly about this. Maybe there's a compromise we can work out, but we need to be assured that Monsieur Arthur has some contribution and won't be stopped from doing that.
Conservative
Colin Carrie Conservative Oshawa, ON
To build on what Mr. Van Kesteren was saying and to take into account what Mr. McTeague was saying, the reality is that a lot of our meetings are the one to one. What happens with that scenario is we go through round one and round two, maybe, and then the witnesses go. Then the next round comes in, and we do the witnesses and they get their opening statements, and then we go through round one and round two again.
With those scenarios, and we've had quite a lot of them, if you look at the record to see how much Mr. Arthur actually had the opportunity to speak, it was a lot less than it would be if we always had two-hour meetings.
So if the idea here, to be fair...and again, as Madam Brunelle was saying, as committees we're masters of our own destiny, and Mr. Arthur is a full member of this committee. He should be treated as such, and we should allow some type of institutionalization that he does have recognition and the ability to speak and add to this committee, just like any other member of the committee.
That is the idea of the change. We don't see any other way of actually making sure that he gets the chance to speak than to just outline it in the rounds. Then there won't be that argument back and forth. It could be any party saying...the Conservatives or the Liberals...you can't give your speaking spot to somebody else.