Official Languages Committee on June 16th, 2011

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Chair, I would like to ask a question.

In other committees, the 48-hour time frame is interpreted as follows. For example, if a report is adopted on Thursday morning, this time frame brings us to the following Monday. It's 48 working hours. Is that how you interpret it as well?

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

I'll consider that an amendment to the main motion, Mr. Julian.

Mr. Julian is suggesting that we put “two business days” instead of “48 hours”.

Mr. Harris.

[Dan Harris, NDP, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

The other document says that 48 hours’ notice be calculated in the same manner as for the House. That probably would be the appropriate language.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Okay, that's appropriate wording.

Is there any debate on the amendment?

(Amendment agreed to)

We're now back to the main motion as amended.

Is there any debate on the main motion as amended?

(Motion as amended agreed to)

We're back to the last routine motion, which is the one that I think will take a bit of debate, as it normally does. It concerns the interrogation of witnesses.

Do I have a mover of a motion, either the one in front of us on paper or a different motion?

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

We do it paragraph by paragraph.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

I'm trying to get direction from the committee. Do you want to use the motion on the paper in front of us as the motion to be moved, or do you want to suggest a new one?

Monsieur Galipeau.

[Royal Galipeau, Conservative, Ottawa—Orléans, ON]

I have something else to suggest.

Instead of six paragraphs, there will be two.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

I'm going to ask you to read it and re-read it so we're all on the same page, and then we'll have a debate.

[Royal Galipeau, Conservative, Ottawa—Orléans, ON]

I propose that we break this down into two items: one, rounds of questioning; and two, speaking order.

On rounds of questioning, the motion is that the witnesses from any one organization shall be allowed 10 minutes to make their opening statement. During the questioning of witnesses there shall be allocated seven minutes for the first round of questioning, and thereafter five minutes shall be allocated to each questioner in the second and subsequent rounds of questioning.

I think that if we can use this for the moment, it would be fairly easy to get a consensus on the matter.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

We have a motion on the floor that witnesses be given 10 minutes for their opening statements and then go to a first round of seven minutes for members, and then for rounds two and beyond, to go to five minutes per member.

As chair, it would be helpful if there could be a minor change to what you've just suggested, which would be to grant witnesses up to 10 minutes for an opening statement. As chair, I've had the problem where we might have two panels of one hour each, and each panel has three members on it. If we give them 10 minutes each, as I would be bound to do by the routine motion, the first 30 minutes of the meeting would be taken up with opening statements from the witnesses. Saying “up to 10 minutes” gives the chair flexibility that if we have a very tight agenda, a lot of members on the panel and not a lot of time, we could shorten it to five minutes each, giving members more time.

[Royal Galipeau, Conservative, Ottawa—Orléans, ON]

Mr. Chairman, if you read the blues of what I said, that's exactly what I said.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

That's not what I wrote down, so my apologies. I understand.

[Royal Galipeau, Conservative, Ottawa—Orléans, ON]

They would be allowed up to 10 minutes.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

What we have in front of us is a motion to do the following. Witnesses would be given up to 10 minutes to make their opening statements; then we would go to the first round of seven minutes for members; and then we would go to the second and subsequent rounds, which would be five minutes, ad infinitum, until the committee meeting ended.

We haven't decided how many members per round are going to be included or what the order will be. Monsieur Galipeau is suggesting we tackle that as a second item.

Monsieur Bélanger.

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

There are two things.

First, I would like to know the rest of the resolution before we adopt it.

Second, I think that the chair should have a little more discretion in the last round. In the last round, the chair should be able to decide whether it will be two or three minutes each, depending on the time left in the meeting. I don't know whether Mr. Galipeau would agree to add this idea of flexibility for the chair in the last round. As I said, I would like to hear the rest of the resolution before making a decision.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

It's up to Monsieur Galipeau if he wants to tell us what his proposal is for the actual members in each round. He doesn't have to. It's up to him.

The second thing I'd point out is that Monsieur Bélanger is asking that the chair be given some discretion and that this motion, or some motion, include giving the chair discretion regarding time.

It's interesting. On this committee in the last Parliament the chair was bound by the order in the routine motion. On other committees, I know that the chair has some discretion, because it's written into the routine motion. It's up to the committee how it wants to proceed.

Monsieur Galipeau.

[Royal Galipeau, Conservative, Ottawa—Orléans, ON]

The intent of this proposal is obviously fairness. I think the spirit of what Mr. Bélanger is proposing is in line with fairness. We always have to be mindful of the clock. It's pretty simple on the first round and second round, but there may not be time for a third round of five minutes. There could be time for a third round of three minutes.

I don't mind giving the chair discretion, especially this chair, who we just unanimously elected.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

How about we add the phrase at the beginning of your motion, moved by an amendment of Monsieur Galipeau, which would read, “That at the discretion of the chair”....

[Royal Galipeau, Conservative, Ottawa—Orléans, ON]

Is that acceptable?

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

That's a lot of trust in the chair. I was referring to the last round.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

It's hard for me to figure out. He's proposing only two rounds.

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

I understand. I can live with that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Mr. Julian.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

We need to know the second part of the proposal because we don't know exactly what Mr. Galipeau is suggesting. We're talking about seven minutes, that's true, but are we still talking about the Conservatives? This would, of course, be less acceptable. We need to have everything on the table, Mr. Chair.

As for the chair, of course you would have to have more flexibility in the last round. That's common practice in almost all the other committees.

[Royal Galipeau, Conservative, Ottawa—Orléans, ON]

Mr. Chair, I have no objection to sharing the content of my next suggestion, which is motivated by the same desire for fairness. Still, I would like both sections to be voted on separately. If you wish, I can present it to you as part of this discussion, but it's not what we're voting on.