Industry Committee on June 15th, 2011

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

The motion is follows:

That the witnesses from any one organization shall be allowed ten minutes to make their opening statement. During the questioning of witnesses, there shall be allocated seven minutes for the first round of questioning and thereafter five minutes shall be allocated to each questioner in the second and subsequent rounds of questioning.

The order of questions for the first round of questioning shall be as follows: Conservative, NDP, Conservative, Liberal. Questioning for the second round shall alternate between the government members and opposition members in the following fashion: Conservative, NDP, Conservative, NDP, Conservative, NDP, Conservative, based on the principle that each committee member should have a full opportunity to question the witnesses. If time permits, further rounds shall repeat the pattern of the first two at the discretion of the chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Mr. Masse.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

In the spirit of compromise, here's what I'm concerned about, Mr. Lake. When we finish the second round, we will have Conservative and then Conservative again. I don't know whether it will revert back to seven minutes--I'd like clarification on that--or continue as five minutes.

A compromise would be perhaps not to have, in that second round, two Conservatives in a row and move to NDP, Conservative, Liberal. As we get close to that time, I have concerns about the fact that we will be going consistently there, and then we will fall into a different pattern from what has been taking place.

I hope this is acceptable as a small amendment. And I'm assuming we will just continue with five minutes.

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

That's what's in the first paragraph: “thereafter five minutes shall be allocated to each questioner in the second and subsequent rounds”.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Okay.

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

As for the other part, I think that's just where it falls to the discretion of the chair. In the past we haven't had issues with it. There will probably be, if anything, two extra questioning rounds.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Are you saying, Mr. Masse, to start the third round with an NDP member?

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Yes. That would stop the two Conservatives, especially.... We're at a pattern of switching at that point. And that would be a compromise we'd hope would be.... It's a small, modest....

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

So it's basically the same allocation but beginning with an NDP member.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Exactly. And that would also allow the Liberal member to get in.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Okay. I'll let Mr. Lake think about that while I go to Madam Gallant.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Having been on committees before where there were rounds where we had repeated opposition, nearly all the time there has been a situation where every government member of the committee did not have the opportunity to speak.

The motion that Mr. Lake has outlined gives fair time to everyone, rather than going through the meeting where we may have several witnesses with ten minutes each and then half of us, or fewer, do not even have an opportunity to question the witness.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Mr. Lake.

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

In answering Brian's question, if you look at this from a logical standpoint, at the end of the second round every member will have spoken once. If any party is going to get an opportunity to speak a second time, it makes sense that the party with the most members would lead that off.

Take yourself off the order for a second, the actual chronological order of who speaks. There are eleven members who are going to be asking questions; six are Conservative, five are opposition members. Everybody gets one shot. Regardless of what the order happened to be in the first and second round, in the next round, if there is time--and rarely is there a situation where there's time--it stands to reason that the party that would lead at that point is the party that has the most members on the committee.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

But dividing into two rounds is not even a rational way to approach it. That's just a thing we've invented. The meeting goes on. There are not two meetings. The meeting doesn't stop and then restart again. And that's what the proposal is, that all of a sudden we'll get to a certain point because everybody has gotten through.

I like the suggestion of making sure everybody participates. I thought that was a valued thing that was added before. But the meeting doesn't stop with 15 minutes to go. It's a continuum.

To me, the second round is something we invent. It's not something that's real. The meeting is a continuum. That's why I'm suggesting it becomes an anomaly in a meeting in terms of the pattern. And it does become important, because at that point in time, if we do have some time.... The clock is ticking. Then perhaps we should reduce the.... I don't know; that won't work either. I just think it's more balanced if we continue with the pattern that's happening. It's fair. It will then, as well, allow Liberals, if there is extra time, to get a little bit of a spot at the end.

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

I don't agree. We can have a vote on it, but let the record show that I really trust the judgment of the chair and his discretion to allocate fairly the rounds of questioning as we get beyond the second round.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Mr. Julian.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

I agree with Mr. Masse that it makes a lot more sense if all the Conservatives on the committee will have gone through and asked their questions. It just makes sense. In the spirit of compromise and working together, which is what this committee has built its reputation on over the past few years, it makes sense to have that slight tweak at the end of the second round. It's a slight tweak, but I think it's a valid one.

Mr. Masse is absolutely right, that not having the alternance of going to the Conservatives a number of times doesn't allow for the kind of smooth interaction of questions coming from the government, coming from the opposition, which is again part of why the industry committee has had such a stellar reputation.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

I have this feeling that the blues are going to be crowded with "in the spirit of compromise and working together".

Mr. Lake, did you have any other response?

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

No, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

We will go to the vote then.

[The Clerk]

Mr. Chair, is there a formal amendment?

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

No, there is not. It was all consensual, and it doesn't look as though we have come to any additional consensus.

Everybody is clear now?

Mr. Lake, do we need it read one more time?

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

No.

(Motion agreed to) [See Minutes of Proceedings]

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Next we will move on to document distribution: that only the clerk of the committee be authorized to distribute to the members of the committee, and only when the documents are available in both official languages, and that witnesses be advised accordingly.

Is there any discussion on that?