Evidence of meeting #1 for Natural Resources in the 42nd 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.
3:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal James Maloney
There are a lot of new people on this committee, including yours truly. How often would a subcommittee typically meet?
3:45 p.m.
Conservative
Candice Bergen Conservative Portage—Lisgar, MB
It's really up to the committee. Some steering committees virtually never meet, and then some steering committees make every decision by steering committee. It would depend on what we decided as a committee.
3:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal James Maloney
This committee is designated to sit on Mondays and Wednesdays, so I was assuming the subcommittee would sit at some other time. Are you proposing to add a third committee day?
3:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal James Maloney
When do you propose this would happen, then? Would it be during one of those two meetings?
3:45 p.m.
Conservative
Candice Bergen Conservative Portage—Lisgar, MB
I could be wrong, but I don't think anyone on a potential steering committee has any extra time for an additional meeting. I think you would want to have it during your meeting time.
Typically, what we did when I was a chair was have our two scheduled meetings, and maybe once every sixth or seventh meeting or whenever, we would have a steering committee meeting. This would mean that nobody else came; it would be just the steering committee members who would be at that particular meeting and make decisions.
It's not an extra meeting.
3:45 p.m.
Liberal
TJ Harvey Liberal Tobique—Mactaquac, NB
What I would like to add from my standpoint is that I'm a proponent of a subcommittee, but I'm not a proponent of a subcommittee that makes all the decisions on behalf of the committee.
In another committee I'm sitting on, we have a subcommittee that is going to arrange the issues and the proposed witnesses and then bring the matters back to the committee as a whole to discuss them. All it's really doing is saving some people some time. Basically, it's taking it out of the normal committee sessions. It's basically going to do it in a different environment. It's not really making any decisions on behalf of people who aren't there; they're bringing everything back to the committee as a whole.
I'm a proponent of that.
3:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal James Maloney
Okay, so you're in favour of the subcommittee.
Does anybody else wish to add to the discussion?
How do we propose to put this to a vote, then? There are really two parts to your.... The subcommittee, as I understand it, would meet in camera, as you're proposing it.
3:45 p.m.
Conservative
John Barlow Conservative Foothills, AB
Mr. Chair, my proposal is that we not have subcommittees or steering committees. Any decisions that we make will be in the open as a group.
I think it's just one motion. I'll put a motion forward that we not have subcommittees.
3:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal James Maloney
Okay.
As Mr. Harvey just pointed out, any decision by the subcommittee would have to be ratified by the committee as a whole, in any event. Is that correct?
To clarify this for voting, Mr. Harvey has moved that the subcommittee be created, using the wording that was read into the record. I think we have to vote on that, and then, depending on the outcome, we can move on to any subsequent motions.
I'll read it again:
That the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure be composed of five (5) members, including the Chair, the two (2) Vice-Chairs and two (2) Government Members and that the quorum of the Subcommittee shall consist of at least three (3) members, including one (1) member of the opposition.
(Motion agreed to)
Before moving on to the next item, I should invite the analyst to come and join us at the table.
Welcome.
Motion number three is on meeting without a quorum:
That the Chair be authorized to hold meetings and to receive and publish evidence when a quorum is not present, provided that at least three (3) members are present, including one (1) member of the opposition and one (1) member of the government.
The motion is moved by Mr. Serré.
(Motion agreed to)
Item number four concerns time for opening remarks and questioning of witnesses.
Is there a question?
3:50 p.m.
Liberal
Michael McLeod Liberal Northwest Territories, NT
Mr. Chair, I'd like to move that witnesses be given up to 10 minutes for their opening statement, at the discretion of the chair; that round one consist of: first, Conservative for six minutes; second, Liberals for six minutes; third, NDP for six minutes; and fourth Liberals for six minutes; and that round two consist of: first, Liberals for six minutes; second, Conservatives for six minutes; third, Liberals for six minutes; fourth, Conservatives for five minutes; and fifth of NDP for three minutes, for a total of 50 minutes, Mr. Chairman.
3:50 p.m.
Liberal
3:50 p.m.
Conservative
John Barlow Conservative Foothills, AB
I don't support the rotation that the member put forward. I think, again from experience, that when you have those six minutes all the way through, it doesn't give a lot of time for every member to have an opportunity to ask questions. As you will start to see during testimony, many of you will not have an opportunity to ask questions if you stick with that six minutes all the way through. I think it's much more beneficial to each of us in the room if you have sevens, fives, and threes. It gives everybody a chance to ensure that you have an opportunity to ask your questions.
As to the order, I think the government party should have the opportunity to ask their question first. I would prefer option two—the PROC option—rather than option one.
February 17th, 2016 / 3:50 p.m.
Conservative
Candice Bergen Conservative Portage—Lisgar, MB
I would just speak very frankly.
In this case, as John said, I think the government members are going to find that these committee meetings can be long and that they're going to be spending a lot of time here. The one chance you get to actually make an impact and say something that will be listened to by your riding is when you ask questions.
When we were in government, which feels like a very long time ago now, we went with the PROC option. It was a bit of a compromise, but we did it for the sake of the opposition members, so that every single member on committee would be able to do their job, say something, maybe mention their riding. It worked out very well. Actually, there were a number of times when for us as the government it didn't work out.... Well, it worked out better, but still there were times when it wasn't the best thing.
I would ask you to at least consider it, so that you would know that you'd each have a chance to speak and that all of us on this committee would have a chance to speak. I know you're probably being directed differently; I know what it's like to be there. But if you are allowed a free vote on this, I would ask that you at least consider this different rotation. Once this is set in stone, gentlemen, it is done. We cannot reverse it. So I would ask that you consider supporting the normal order whereby the government starts and then we all get a chance to speak.
Thank you.
3:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal James Maloney
I've just been advised that we actually can change that at any time, so it's not set in stone.
3:50 p.m.
Conservative
Candice Bergen Conservative Portage—Lisgar, MB
I could be wrong, but if they're going to be whipped on this one, I doubt anyone's going to let them change it at another time. That's all I'm saying.
3:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal James Maloney
I just thought that if one of us is wrong, it's important that we clarify that before we make a decision. That's all.
Mr. Harvey.
3:50 p.m.
Liberal
TJ Harvey Liberal Tobique—Mactaquac, NB
As a point of clarification, is the proposal from Mr. Barlow to adopt the PROC format? Do you want to amend the original motion to adopt PROC?
3:50 p.m.
Some hon. members
Yes.
3:55 p.m.
Conservative
Shannon Stubbs Conservative Lakeland, AB
Mr. Chair, as a point of clarification for my colleague's proposal, you're correct. We would like to propose an amendment to the speaking order so that it would reflect what I understand is a rotation that's been adopted by committees recently. That would be, in the first round, seven minutes for each, and that order would go Liberal, Conservative, NDP, and then Liberal. In the second round it would go Conservative for five minutes, Liberal for five minutes, Conservative for five minutes, Liberal for five minutes, and NDP for three minutes.
3:55 p.m.
Conservative