Natural Resources Committee on Feb. 17th, 2016

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Mr. McLeod.

[Michael McLeod, Liberal, Northwest Territories, NT]

Mr. Chairman, I think that if you add up the PROC's recommendation, there is an extra minute in it. I take it, then, that the Conservatives are giving up one of their minutes to hit the 50-minute mark, because that doesn't add up to 50 minutes. It adds up to 51 minutes, so somebody would have—

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

We're checking the math on that.

You're right, it's 51.

Mr. Harvey.

[TJ Harvey, Liberal, Tobique—Mactaquac, NB]

If my math serves me correctly, and math was one of the subjects that I was actually decent at, and it seems like pretty simple math, it adds up to 51 minutes, which is seven, seven, seven, seven, five, five, five, five, and three, for a total of 51 minutes.

Is that the amendment that you wish to bring forth?

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

It's PROC's, right?

It's also an amendment to change the order, plus the times of the order.

[TJ Harvey, Liberal, Tobique—Mactaquac, NB]

It's the adoption of the PROC model, which was agreed upon by all three parties previously.

[A voice]

Yes.

[TJ Harvey, Liberal, Tobique—Mactaquac, NB]

I have no issue with that. I'm just speaking to the amendment to the motion.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Okay.

[Marc Serré, Liberal, Nickel Belt, ON]

Mr. Chair, I also have no issue with the PROC model to provide the split here and then changing the first to the second. I think that would be a good thing.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Okay, so could somebody, just so we're crystal clear here, go through this document in the way you're proposing it to be amended?

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

I'm suggesting that the time for opening remarks remain at 10 minutes for the opening statement from our witnesses.

What I am suggesting is that we accept the PROC system in terms of our questioning and the time and the order as part of that. That would be: seven minutes, five, five, five, five, three, and then the Liberals, Conservatives, NDP, and then Liberal, Conservative.

[An hon. member]

Is that not what you handed out?

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

See, I have a different sheet here. There are two different sheets going around here.

[An hon. member]

I wonder if that's the problem.

[The Clerk]

I understand that there are three different documents going around.

There's one document entitled, “Routine motions adopted by the Committee during the second session of the 41st Parliament”. That's what was inserted in your briefing book that was sent 10 days ago. There's another document on the RNNR routine motions adopted by the committee in the previous session. Some people are referring to the motions adopted by PROC in December, and that's something else.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Let me put this forward, then.

Regarding the sheet with the title “Routine Motions Adopted During the First Session of the 42nd Parliament”, I am suggesting that we keep that as that is the PROC system and that's what's been used for most of the committees in the past. All I'm saying is that we keep that system and not change to another one.

On this sheet here, this is the one we've used in the past and I'm suggesting that we continue to use that system.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

That's the one with Liberals, seven minutes, Conservatives, seven minutes, NDP, seven minutes, Liberals, seven minutes, right? Round two is Conservatives, five minutes, Liberals, five minutes, Conservatives, five minutes, Liberals, five minutes, NDP, three minutes.

Does everybody understand the amendment? Can we have a vote, then, on the motion as amended to adopt the PROC procedure, which I just read into the record?

Mr. McLeod.

[Michael McLeod, Liberal, Northwest Territories, NT]

Mr. Chairman, it's the same question. Are we planning to go over the hour, then? This is an hour and a minute. We're going 51 minutes plus 10 minutes for the witness. Is that what we're agreeing to? Is that the motion?

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Mr. Chair, to Mr. McLeod, this is in the best-case scenario, but rarely will this ever happen, if ever. You're going to have more than one witness per meeting. You will never have an hour with each one, or very rarely.

That's why I really want to stick with this PROC system, so every member, or close to every member, has an opportunity to ask a question. A lot of these bottom ones will not happen. That's why I think it's important we go with the PROC system, so all of us in this room have an opportunity to ask a question. I think that's vitally important.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Does that answer your question?

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

To help Mr. McLeod, if anything, the opposition will be losing its time slots more often than not because we're the bottom two.

[Michael McLeod, Liberal, Northwest Territories, NT]

If we're all okay with going an hour and a minute, because that's what it adds up to, regardless if we use it or not, it's still going to add up to that. That's the time we have to allow. If everyone of us hits the max, that's what we're going to do, an hour and a minute: 51 minutes for the parties, 10 minutes for the witness.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Does anybody not understand that's the consequence, that we're adding a minute to this?

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

No, you're going to cut off the meeting.