Evidence of meeting #1 for Natural Resources in the 40th Parliament, 2nd session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was amendment.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
Next is the motion on notice of motions. Is there any proposal for notice of motions?
Mr. Hiebert.
Conservative
Russ Hiebert Conservative South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale, BC
I propose that we adopt the motion as it was written last time.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
The proposal is that it be as it was last time.
Is there any discussion on the motion?
(Motion agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
Next is the motion on time allocation. This is for the questioning of witnesses. Are there proposals on that?
Mr. Anderson.
Conservative
David Anderson Conservative Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK
Mr. Chair, I'd like to make a proposal.
The order of questions for the first round shall be as follows: Liberal, Bloc, NDP, Conservative.
Questioning during the second round shall alternate--
Conservative
Conservative
Conservative
David Anderson Conservative Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK
We're just doing rounds of questioning. We'll come to the speaking order later, I guess. so it would read:
That witnesses from any one organization shall be allowed 10 minutes to make their opening statement. During the questioning of witnesses, there shall be allocated 7 minutes for the first round and thereafter 5 minutes shall be allocated to each questioner in the second and subsequent rounds.
That's what we had before.
Conservative
David Anderson Conservative Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK
So it's ten minutes for the guest, seven minutes, and then five minutes.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
Did you get the order he proposed for the second round of questioning?
Conservative
Conservative
David Anderson Conservative Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK
Do you want to do this separately, or do you want to do the speaking order now as well? I haven't changed anything on the rounds of questioning.
Liberal
Geoff Regan Liberal Halifax West, NS
The question is, why not adopt the same one you had last time? How is this different?
Conservative
David Anderson Conservative Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK
It isn't. I'm wondering if you want that in the same motion or in a separate motion. I made the mistake of starting on the speaking order when we were talking about rounds of questioning.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
I think we can handle them together. Just put a motion out there that includes them.
Conservative
David Anderson Conservative Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK
So the order of questions would be: Liberal, Bloc, NDP, and Conservative for the first round. Questioning during the second round would alternate between opposition members and government members in the following fashion: Liberal, Conservative, Bloc, Conservative, Liberal, Conservative, and Conservative.
That is based on the principle that each committee member should have a full opportunity to question witnesses before anyone gets a chance to repeat their questioning. Everyone would get a chance to speak before anyone spoke twice.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
So it respects the way the numbers on committees have been allocated by the House leaders and the whips of the parties.
Bloc
Bernard Bigras Bloc Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC
I do not know what the New Democratic Party thinks about it, but if, on the second round, each member has not asked a question, it naturally gives a definite advantage to the Conservatives. The NDP is inevitably disadvantaged because, according to this list, it does not get back in until the fourth round of questions. I am not sure that we will necessarily have the time to get to a fourth round during a committee meeting. So it seems to me that we are giving a clear advantage to the Conservative Party.
Conservative
Bradley Trost Conservative Saskatoon—Humboldt, SK
I would just point out that Mr. Anderson added up five Conservatives, three Liberals, two Bloc, and one NDP, with the Conservatives being clustered at the end of the final round. That means every member of the committee is being treated equally. But the odds are that if we have a longer committee, the Conservative members will get cut off because they're the ones at the end. While every member is being treated equally, if we go through the entire round the advantage will be to the opposition members, in that they will more likely be guaranteed their positions than a Conservative member. I think that should be noted.
There are 11 slots here because there are 11 members, excluding the chair. There are five Conservative slots, three Liberal, two Bloc, and one NDP. If we go late, the Conservatives are the ones most likely to be cut off. That's why I think it is a fair proposal.