Evidence of meeting #1 for Public Accounts 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.
4:35 p.m.
Conservative
Daryl Kramp Conservative Prince Edward—Hastings, ON
To accommodate what Dave is saying, just change the Liberal and the NDP so we don't end up with two members back to back from the same party.
4:35 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Shawn Murphy
Somebody mentioned that they shouldn't have two Conservatives together, but I don't know how we're going to do this. My reading of it is Liberal, Conservative, Bloc, NDP, Conservative, Liberal, Conservative, Conservative.
4:35 p.m.
Conservative
Daryl Kramp Conservative Prince Edward—Hastings, ON
No. I'll repeat again then, with the changes for the amendment as proposed by Mr. Christopherson.
4:35 p.m.
Conservative
Daryl Kramp Conservative Prince Edward—Hastings, ON
For the second round, it's Liberal, Conservative, Bloc, Conservative, NDP, Conservative, Liberal, Conservative. That would be the amendment Mr. Christopherson has recommended.
4:35 p.m.
Liberal
Bonnie Crombie Liberal Mississauga—Streetsville, ON
I'm trying to understand the need for the amendment. Is it because there's a fifth Conservative member? I'm fine with the way the original reads. I'm sure it's served the committee well in the past. It was used previously, and I don't understand the need to amend it.
4:35 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Shawn Murphy
Okay, you're speaking against it.
I will ask Mr. Kramp at the end to elaborate further than he already has. Before I go to him, is there anyone else?
Okay, I'm going to turn the floor over to Mr. Kramp. Perhaps he can address Mrs. Crombie's concerns and add any final comments he wants to make, and then I'll put the question.
4:35 p.m.
Conservative
Daryl Kramp Conservative Prince Edward—Hastings, ON
I'm actually quite comfortable with the existing motion. I don't have too much of a problem with it, except that what we have right now takes up more time in the first session.
And it does put an imbalance within the parties on the first round of questioning, because both the Liberals and Conservatives have two rounds in the first round, if you know what I mean. If you have a premier round that way it does put a bit of an imbalance, even though they have the superiority in numbers. I'm suggesting we need a balance through the entire process, not just in one area versus the other.
If you take those two and leave the four with equal time, that does allow some extra latitude of time to put into your other section of five minutes. Then, when we run through those on the prescribed list, where we've been alternating as per the proposal from Mr. Christopherson, it actually shows that we're committed to parity and “fairity”--if you love that word.
4:40 p.m.
Liberal
4:40 p.m.
Conservative
Bev Shipley Conservative Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON
I need you to help me.
When I read through the part on opening statements, when we have witnesses--and I don't know in this committee whether you often get one or two or if you get half a dozen, in terms of groups--I think in terms of presentation, five minutes is the shortest I've seen at any committee. Usually they have 10 minutes. You're asking someone to come in and make a presentation worth five minutes. We're giving ourselves seven minutes to ask them questions, but we're only giving them five minutes to present their case, and I'm wondering how that has worked.
It would seem to me that if an organization comes in with two or three people, then they make the decision of how that's going to be presented.
So there are a couple of things. I think the five minutes seems really short, when we have more question time than they have presentation time. My suggestion on that would be 10 minutes per organization, in terms of witnesses.
There's an amendment to that effect.
4:40 p.m.
Liberal
4:40 p.m.
Conservative
4:40 p.m.
An hon. member
Opening statements is what you mean, I think.
4:40 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Shawn Murphy
Right now, it's five minutes.
We're off kilter on the procedure here.
Mr. Shipley wants to make a further amendment and change five minutes to ten. If I may, let me just say the five minutes has worked. At this committee, normally the witness would be the Auditor General. She has presented, and she's quite used to the five minutes. The other witnesses are normally the accounting officer, the deputy minister or the agency head, maybe Treasury Board, and sometimes private witnesses. If they need additional time, we usually give them two to three extra minutes to conclude. I don't normally cut people off, but I have if I see they're going to go on and on.
That's been the practice of the committee, and I don't think we've ever had any complaint that we don't give people enough time. But again, it's up to the committee to decide.
The amendment, colleagues, is to delete the word “five” and insert “ten”. Is there any other discussion?
4:40 p.m.
Conservative
Bev Shipley Conservative Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON
Mr. Chair, maybe I'll leave it. I'll go with your discretion. I was trying to get clarification, as much as anything. It just seemed really short, but if the committee has worked well with that, then it's fine.
4:40 p.m.
Liberal
4:40 p.m.
Conservative
4:40 p.m.
Conservative
John Weston Conservative West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC
In a committee I was in earlier today, we came to the same point and we inserted the words “subject to the discretion of the chair, the witnesses be given x minutes”. So that would give you the flexibility to give the witness longer time.
