Evidence of meeting #3 for Transport, Infrastructure and Communities in the 39th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was international.
12:30 p.m.
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
I'm sorry, I don't think we've adopted the report, have we?
I just wanted to make sure that I reported back to the committee, as I said I would, on the minister. June 1 is a date that's available to the minister and the department. I'm not sure he can be here the whole time, but my understanding is if he can't be, the department would be happy to answer questions as well. I'm sure there would be an hour with the minister for sure, but if we can get more time, that would be great.
12:30 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
Is everyone good with June 1?
I will ask that we adopt the first report as presented with amendments. Is it agreed?
12:30 p.m.
Some hon. members
Agreed.
12:30 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
There are a couple of issues I want to discuss and on which I want clarification. During the first meeting we did discuss how the rounds would take place. I've checked the minutes, and when I read the minutes, the procedure we followed was correct, but it was also brought to my attention that perhaps the way it was recorded was not correct, or did not reflect our intention.
I understood the intention to be that we would have rounds until everyone had spoken once, and then we would open it up for the last five minutes for the Bloc and the New Democratic Party. The way it is presented in the form is that we would have one round of seven minutes for each party and then another round of five minutes for each party and then an open floor for five minutes each for each person who has not spoken.
I look for direction from the committee. Initially when I saw it, that wasn't the way I interpreted it, so I'm looking for clarification and direction.
Mr. Jean, go ahead, please.
12:30 p.m.
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
It was my motion, Mr. Chair, and I don't think there is any doubt with any member of the committee what the intention of the motion was. I've asked for a copy of the tape. I would still like it even if we resolve it at this stage, just for future reference. It was not the intention of the motion to have it read like that. Quite frankly, I can't imagine that I didn't do it that way, but I make mistakes every day, so I'm sure I did. It was the intention that everybody receive five minutes, or some period of time of discussion or questions before anybody had a second turn. That was what the intention was. That's not how it reads in the minutes.
12:30 p.m.
Bloc
Mario Laframboise Bloc Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC
I agree on the way we've proceeded today. Do we want to reconsider the way we've proceeded today? Did you think it didn't work? I won't reconsider it.
12:30 p.m.
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
Whether today was good or whether today wasn't good is not the issue. We're going to have ministers; we're going to have different people here. I think the situation is that sometimes we're going to have witnesses that are going to be more in demand than at other times. But that wasn't the intention of the person making the motion, which was me, and certainly that was not the discussion that any of us had, quite frankly. In fact it was quite the opposite. Some of the opposition we received on it arose specifically on the basis that it was unfair because it didn't give parties equal time. I would like to have the opportunity to look at the transcript, and I will be making a motion accordingly on that basis at the next meeting.
I quite frankly didn't have a problem today. In fact my intention was to provide my time to opposition parties other than the Liberals--no disrespect intended--just to give more time, because Mr. Julian had some great questions, I think, for the witnesses. But in the future, it may be the case. Quite frankly, in this particular case, Mr. Julian would receive 12 minutes of time before the Conservative Party, with substantially more votes from a national perspective, received even 10 minutes, so I don't think that's fair. I would like to have the opportunity to review the tape and to make a motion at the next sitting of this committee.
12:30 p.m.
Bloc
Mario Laframboise Bloc Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC
Were we limited with regard to time? I had the impression you didn't have any more questions. It may have been stupidity on my part, but I thought we had finished. Was only one hour allocated for the witness? We could have continued.
12:35 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
No, we're not at liberty to give that much. What was brought to my attention was that actually the process I followed today was based on how I was reading it in the notes provided. I think we should check the blues to confirm the intention of what was presented at the last meeting. It would suggest--and my interpretation before reading this was--that everyone would have a chance to speak once before anyone spoke a second time.
Can I ask for the committee's indulgence? Apparently there is no tape of it, but there is a blues section. We'll check to confirm the intent of what was actually said and report back at the next committee.
Mr. Laframboise, go ahead, please.
12:35 p.m.
Bloc
12:35 p.m.
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
I missed some of the first translation. I apologize.
12:35 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
Basically, both members of your party spoke. Each had an opportunity, and the way I interpreted it at the first meeting was that the Liberals would start, and then it would be the Bloc, the NDP, a Conservative member, Liberal, Bloc, Conservative, Liberal, Conservative, and then the last 10 minutes would be open to the Bloc and the....
Go ahead, Mr. Jean--
12:35 p.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC
Mr. Chair, I don't think we can resolve this today. It was Mr. Laframboise who moved the motion. I think things worked well today, and I don't think we should have another very contentious debate around the issue.
12:35 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
I won't disagree with that, but I do think it's important that we get the motion and the discussion, and then we can make a reasonable....
Mr. Jean.
12:35 p.m.
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
I want to make it clear on the record that it's not about parties; it's about every person who's been elected by 100,000 people in this country having the same opportunity to ask questions of witnesses. On the basis of the NDP's proportional representation proposal, I think it's wrong that members of Parliament do not have equal time, at least for a period of time, to ask questions. Every one of them should have that opportunity.
What I'd like to know, Mr. Chair, is why tapes are not kept. My understanding is that everything is recorded. I would like to know for future reference as to what happens and why it's not simply a matter of course.
12:35 p.m.
Conservative
12:35 p.m.
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
May I ask, Mr. Chair, if you could find out why we're not recorded, or if they destroy the tapes if we are? I would like to know about recordings.
12:35 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
If there are no other comments we'll do up business for Tuesday. We will call C-3 again, and if there are no witnesses we'll proceed to clause-by-clause, if that's agreed.