Industry Committee on Feb. 5th, 2009

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

The fifth proposed routine motion concerns the distribution of documents. I'll read it and then ask for somebody to move it:

That only the Clerk of the Committee be authorized to distribute documents to members of the Committee, and that all documents which are to be distributed among the Committee members must be in both official languages.

This is moved by Mr. Warkentin.

Is there any discussion?

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB]

I have just a minor amendment. This has come up at various meetings that I've been at. I just want to add, at the end of the motion, the following: that the clerk shall advise all witnesses appearing before committee of this requirement.

This way, the witnesses will know ahead of time.

(Amendment agreed to)

(Motion as amended agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

The sixth proposed routine motion concerns working meals. I'll read it and ask for someone to move it:

That the Committee hereby authorize the Clerk of the Committee, in consultation with the Chair, to make the necessary arrangements to provide for working meals as may be required, and that the cost of these meals be charged to the Committee budget.

This is moved by Mr. Warkentin.

Is there any discussion on the motion?

(Motion agreed to)

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Staff at in camera meetings.

Each committee member in attendance shall be permitted to have one staff member at any in camera meetings. In addition, each party shall be permitted to have one member of the Whip's staff attend in camera meetings.

This is moved by Mr. Masse.

Is there any discussion on the motion?

(Motion agreed to)

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

In camera meetings transcripts.

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.

That's moved by Mr. Rota.

Any discussion?

Mr. Bouchard.

[Robert Bouchard, Bloc, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC]

I so move.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

I think Mr. Rota has moved it.

(Motion agreed to)

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Routine motion nine is with regard to notice of motions:

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.

This is moved by Mr. Masse.

(Motion agreed to)

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Motion 10 has to do with witnesses' expenses:

That as established by the Board of Internal Economy and if requested, reasonable travelling, accommodation and living expenses be reimbursed to witnesses who are invited to appear before the Committee up to a maximum of two representatives from any one organization, and that if requested, reasonable child care expenses of the witnesses shall be reimbursed, and that in exceptional circumstances, payment for more representatives be made at the discretion of the Chair.

That's moved by Mr. Masse.

Is there any discussion?

(Motion agreed to)

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

We're on number 11.

Allocation of time for questioning.

That witnesses be given up to ten (10) minutes for their opening statement and that, at the discretion of the chair, during the questioning of witnesses, time and sequence be allocated as follows, and that a member may yield their time to another: Round 1, six (6) minutes: Liberal Party Bloc Québécois Conservative Party New Democratic Party Round 2, five (5) minutes: Liberal Party...

It is moved by Mr. Warkentin.

Is there any discussion on this motion?

Mr. Lake, and then Mr. Masse.

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB]

In recognition of the fact that this time around the committee structure is a little different from what it was last time in terms of the number of people at the committee, there are a couple minor changes I think we could consider.

The first change would be very minor. We were looking at the possibility of changing round one from six minutes to seven minutes to give a more fulsome round of questioning. That's been fairly typical of the committees that I've been a part of.

The second change regards the order of questioning. Round one is fine the way it is, but I would propose that we merge rounds two and three to be one round. You may want to write this down so you can view this as we're discussing it. The order of questioning would be Liberal Party, Conservative Party, Bloc, Conservative Party, New Democratic Party. I would propose then that the independent get his round, and then it would be Liberal Party and Conservative Party to finish. In the first two rounds this order would ensure that every single member of the committee would get one round of questioning and that the NDP member would get an additional round just because that's typically been done on most committees. I know that has usually wound up being a bit of a bone of contention during committee meetings we've been at. That's been the conventional way we've done things. Of course, we did it in the last Parliament, and the NDP's share of seats has gone up, so it would seem to make sense to continue with that practice.

In the third round or subsequent rounds as we go, in committees I've been on, typical procedure has been that we go with an opposition round and then a Conservative round then an opposition round and then a Conservative round. The third part of the proposal would be to just go opposition, Conservative, opposition, Conservative. Typically, if anything, there's only time for two more question rounds, if there's time for any at all.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

This is to clarify the amendment being proposed here and then we can have a discussion on it.

Mr. Lake has proposed that the motion be amended by changing the first round from six to seven minutes; by creating a second round of five minutes that would consist of the following order: Liberal, Conservative, Bloc Québécois, Conservative, NDP, independent, Liberal, Conservative; and by creating a third round of five minutes that would rotate between the opposition and the government.

Is there any discussion?

Mr. Masse.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The reason this round was created from the original one is that the Conservatives had Mr. Arthur sit with them as an independent member. When you look back at the history, they actually gave up one of their spots for Mr. Arthur, to make it more fair. The original one here recognized the fact that the Conservatives had given up one of their spots for Mr. Arthur.

The problem we have with the new amended proposal by the government is that you want to make sure each member has a chance and that an independent is not going to be shut out of a committee here. At the same time, if you have it this way, their waiting will be extremely heavy compared to that of the other parties, especially if you use a model at the end that goes opposition, Conservative, opposition, Conservative. It doesn't take into account that the original spot was actually given up by the Conservatives to fit in the independent because they chose to have that person sit with them on their side.

I have a few reservations with the model being presented. With the other model we often got through, and if we could get those rounds of questioning in, it would work out. This one gives me concern because it really adds another Conservative spot in there.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Thank you, Mr. Masse.

Mr. Lake.

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB]

Yes, to address that, one of the things you may have missed a little of in terms of what I presented is that I did not add a Conservative spot. For whatever reason, the way you had it set up last time, the Conservatives had one extra spot for the members on the committee. I recognize that. I haven't added a Conservative spot. The only change actually has been to my Liberal colleagues. I've taken away one Liberal spot because there's one less Liberal member. That's the only change I made. We're giving up our fifth spot in questioning for the independent, according to the plan I put forward, but in the last Parliament we had the same number of spots anyway.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

I'm sorry, but I have to leave. Glenn is going to take over for me. I have to be on a panel show.

There's one suggestion I would make in the interests of working this through to be fairer. Once again, the independent spot is now up in the ranks really high, and that used to be a Conservative spot. I would suggest that maybe we could have the next Conservative spot be an opposition spot, so that would allow all the opposition to get in, and then have the two Conservative spots after that in round three.

That would be my suggestion. It would guarantee a little more balance if you go through it that way.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Mr. Masse, are you proposing an amendment to the amendment?

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Yes, I would propose that the third round would be opposition, opposition, opposition, followed by Conservative, Conservative.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Just to clarify, you're proposing that the third round be...?

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Basically, it would be Liberal, Bloc, NDP, Conservative, and Conservative.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Just to clarify, we're now on discussions about the amendment to the amendment. Mr. Masse has proposed that we amend the third round so that its order is Liberal, Bloc Québécois, NDP, Conservative, and Conservative.

Is there any discussion about this amendment to the third round?

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB]

I just want to reiterate the fact that this proposal actually puts our party, despite the fact that we gained 20 seats, in a lesser position than we were last time. Under my proposal, we have exactly the same number of questioning rounds as we had last time, and we were first in the last round.

If you'd be amenable to it, my suggestion would be to make round four as it is written here the round three for the new rounds, and we'd just go with that. Does that sound that reasonable?

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Yes, that's fair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Go ahead, Mr. Lake, and clarify that.

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB]

Yes. On the third round, instead of opposition, Conservative, opposition, and Conservative, we would just make round four as written last time our third round.