Evidence of meeting #1 for National Defence in the 43rd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was minutes.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Karen McCrimmon
With regard to the additional Conservative Party and Liberal Party rounds, are they five minutes each?
Conservative
James Bezan Conservative Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB
It would be five minutes each, and then we'd increase the Bloc and NDP to three minutes each.
Technically, it's another 11 minutes, but it allows us to get everybody up for that first chance to question witnesses.
NDP
Randall Garrison NDP Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC
There were long negotiations about the sharing of time to reflect the relative strength of the parties in the House of Commons rather than individuals. As I've argued before, as the Conservatives and the Liberals have five-minute rounds, they can split those rounds so that all their members get a chance to participate. It's really up to the parties, if they wish, to make that decision.
If we're going to change that, we would need to then renegotiate the number of minutes, because, with respect to Mr. Bezan's proposal, it means that there would never be a second question from the Bloc and the NDP, for any practical purposes.
Bloc
Michel Boudrias Bloc Terrebonne, QC
I find that the content of the motion and the amendment is very thin in terms of clarifying our work, considering that each member's presence on this committee is, without exception, valid and legitimate.
We understand the role of the second and third opposition parties, but I do not see why, in the current framework, we would be limited to two and a half or three minutes, depending on the circumstances. It can also happen that we have gone over a question, that we do not need all the time we have been given, and that 30 seconds are enough.
There is an element of restriction that I do not approve of. I appeal to the good will of the committee to guarantee a minimum degree of fairness and to give us five minutes, if possible.
I would like to move an amendment that, in the second round of questioning, the Bloc Québécois and the New Democratic Party have five minutes, like everyone else who are here to play their role.
Conservative
Cheryl Gallant Conservative Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON
What has been observed in the past, before we had the motion where each person spoke, was that we would have two members of the official opposition speak, two members of government speak. There would be one or two members of government or official opposition who never got to speak, but then the individuals of the third and the fourth party got to speak twice.
In this continuing spirit of collaboration, I would like to see that every member of this committee has a chance to speak at least once during a meeting.
Liberal
Larry Bagnell Liberal Yukon, YT
I have some sympathy with Mr. Boudrias, being fair.
Mr. Garrison said that this was negotiated, but we've just changed it. Mr. Garrison made an amendment that we change this. It's different in all of the other committees, so we have our own destiny to decide at this committee.
Conservative
James Bezan Conservative Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB
I would just say that this is in the spirit of fairness so that everybody does get a chance to ask questions before there is any duplication with the Bloc and NDP. I'm prepared to balance off the time by giving extra time, from two and a half to three minutes, for each of the Bloc and NDP members.
That does empower the committee. It allows all of us to participate, and I think it makes for better studies at the end of the day.
Bloc
Michel Boudrias Bloc Terrebonne, QC
I am being told that this actually has been negotiated among the parties. I withdraw the proposed amendment I just made, which I attribute to my inexperience and to the fact that I am a young rookie with committees. We therefore accept the document as it stands.
Liberal
Sven Spengemann Liberal Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON
Madam Chair, I will just circle back one more time to the ability to split time. It requires a bit more discipline with six minutes, but it is possible to split it not only in two but in three so that at least half of the official opposition would be able to get their time.
The philosophy is to give precedence to the distribution of the party votes in the chamber.
Conservative
Cheryl Gallant Conservative Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON
Madam Chair, it is not giving precedence to the number of people in a party if some members of a party do not have an opportunity to ask questions.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Karen McCrimmon
Is there any further discussion?
There is an amendment on the table and that is to “insert in the second subsequent round an additional Conservative Party for five minutes and Liberal Party for five minutes before we go to the Bloc Québécois and New Democratic Party and to increase those two to up to three minutes”.
(Amendment negatived)
We are now on the main motion on questioning of witnesses.
(Motion agreed to)
Mr. Spengemann.
Liberal
Sven Spengemann Liberal Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON
Madam Chair, the next motion is on document distribution:
That the Clerk of the Committee be authorized to distribute documents to members of the Committee only when documents are available in both official languages and that witnesses be advised accordingly.
Conservative
Cheryl Gallant Conservative Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON
If a witness places documents in front of the clerk but they're only in one official language, is it permissible for someone to pick up that document?
Conservative
Cheryl Gallant Conservative Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON
If it's in a pile in front of him, can we just take one?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Karen McCrimmon
The clerk says if they're in his possession, that's one thing. If they're on a table somewhere else, then that's not in his purview.
Yes, Mr. Robillard.
Liberal
Yves Robillard Liberal Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC
Really, can we make sure that all documents must be ready in both official languages in order for us to begin?
Do you understand?