Natural Resources Committee on Feb. 5th, 2009

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Bill Siksay, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Somebody's going to go away disappointed from this afternoon and, unfortunately, I'm the one who has to make the call, it appears. I'm prepared to do that.

Chair, I don't think the argument of direct correlation between number of seats and speaking time is a valid argument. We allocate speaking time and other opportunities for participation in very different kinds of processes around this institution in many different ways. We certainly don't, for instance, allocate questions in question period according to the number of seats. The Conservative Party doesn't get their full share of questions in question period in that kind of circumstance.

That being said, even our number of seats doesn't really represent the wishes of the Canadian people, because we know that the percentage of the popular vote doesn't represent the number of seats that parties win in Parliament.

I think all of those arguments are difficult ones and fail. However, there has to be a way out of the impasse, and I think the way to do that is to support Mr. Allen's amendment. That's a compromise I can certainly live with. Clearly, there is an advantage for the New Democrat even though that speaking position is the last one in the round and would often be difficult to get to, but I am persuaded that there should be an opportunity for each member of the committee to find time in the full rotation, in the first and second rounds. I am persuaded by that argument and will support Mr. Allen's subamendment.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Is there any further discussion?

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Could you read Mr. Allen's proposal for us again?

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Yes, let's make sure we have it. Let's hear Mr. Allen's subamendment, please.

[The Clerk]

First round, seven minutes, Liberal Party, Bloc Québécois, NDP, Conservative Party; second round, Liberal, Conservative, Bloc, Conservative; third round, Liberal, Conservative, Conservative, NDP; fourth round, five minutes, Liberal, Bloc, NDP, Conservative.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

You've all heard the subamendment.

Shall we go to the vote on the subamendment?

(Subamendment agreed to)

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Now we'll go to the amendment as amended by the subamendment.

(Amendment agreed to)

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Now we go to the vote on the motion as amended.

(Motion as amended agreed to)

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

We have arrived at an agreement.

Mr. Anderson.

[David Anderson, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

I have one more proposal for a routine motion. This is to give priority to legislation. It's a new motion.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Mr. Anderson has the floor, and he is proposing another motion here.

[David Anderson, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

This is another routine motion to deal with priority of legislation.

The motion reads as follows:

That the consideration and examination of any bill, government or private member's bill, which falls within the express mandate of the committee take precedence over any study or non-legislative examination other than questions of privilege. In such circumstances, the non-legislative study shall be deferred until such time as the bill is reported back to the House.

That's to give preference to legislation.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

You've heard the motion.

Mr. Regan, I think, was first.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Mr. Chairman, I think we should keep the hands of the committee free. This handcuffs the committee. It determines its choices. The committee is the master of its own house. It ought to remain the master of its own house. It ought to be able to determine what it wants to study and when, unless, of course, there's a direct order from the House. But the fact of the matter is this is tying the hands of the committee in a way that's inappropriate.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Mr. Bains.

[Navdeep Bains, Liberal, Mississauga—Brampton South, ON]

We just passed that motion on notice of motions requiring 48 hours.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Yes.

[Navdeep Bains, Liberal, Mississauga—Brampton South, ON]

So if this is a motion, wouldn't it require 48 hours' notice, if there's no consensus?

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

It is a routine motion, which is what we're dealing with.

[Navdeep Bains, Liberal, Mississauga—Brampton South, ON]

So this is being proposed as a routine motion, not as a motion?

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

That's right.

[Navdeep Bains, Liberal, Mississauga—Brampton South, ON]

And what's the difference between a routine motion and--

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Well, that's the subject we're dealing with here today. So obviously if we had to have 48 hours' notice for motions today, we'd be in trouble.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

It doesn't sound very routine. It's an extraordinary motion, Mr. Chairman. It isn't part of the previous workings of the committee. It seems to me it's not a routine motion.