Transport Committee on Nov. 15th, 2007

[Joe Volpe, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Mr. Chairman, I think it says right here in motion 4—which we haven't yet moved and accepted—that thereafter the five minutes be allocated for a second round to each party. That's why I asked you for the clarification on what this is, whether it goes Liberal and Conservative; Liberal, Conservative; Conservative, Conservative, Bloc, and so on. You have to get all of the opposition members in.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Yes, absolutely.

[Joe Volpe, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

And since among all of the opposition members there would be three Liberals and one Bloc—or four opposition members—that would mean you'd have to have four government members in that exchange before you'd get to the NDP or an independent. That's how I thought we would try to operate, so that every member of the committee would have an opportunity to have input.

If there is time left over, of course, you can continue along the party lines, and then you would go to an independent. But you'd have five, four, two, and one who get to make their address first before you'd get to a third or fourth round that would include the NDP.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Monsieur Laframboise.

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

The motion before us today reflects what we had last time. That is why we left item 4 to your discretion, so that all committee members would have an opportunity to speak on the first round. I think the proposal we have today is the same as that in place before prorogation. We could start alternating on the second round, but by that time, it takes hours of discussion, and often we never get that far. That is why I move that we adopt the routine motions that have been presented and that are the same as those we had in the last Parliament.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Bell.

[Don Bell, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

My understanding is that motion 4 is not how we practised last time. Last year we actually handed out a chart that showed the speaking order. It showed what you described earlier, Mr. Chair. Rather than five minutes for each round to each party, it was to members of each party that had not yet spoken. That's the distinction.

So number 4, as printed, is not what we adopted as our practice for last year. We actually had a diagram, and we went to great pains at that time to show a diagram.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

And that was what I tried to read out, in the sense that in the seven-minute round, the first round of questioning, every party would get seven minutes. After that it would alternate between—

[Don Bell, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

That's not what it says.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Is it not?

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

It says for the second round, five minutes to each party.

I do have a copy of the motion that we adopted last year.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

We would have to have it translated.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

It is translated.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Okay, thank you.

Basically, after the first round with everyone participating, we would go Liberal, Bloc, Conservative, and then we would go Liberal, Conservative, till everyone has a chance to participate, and then the floor would be opened up again to all parties.

I know, Mr. Masse, your question is, do we want to change that?

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Yes. I mean, the committees that I've participated in have always had at least a second opportunity for the NDP to ask some questions. Obviously I'm open to making sure all committee members get an opportunity to participate--I mean, it's healthy for the committee--but at the same time I would look for assurances that at least I have an opportunity to get in on the second round at some point in time.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

I hope the other committee members would say that I was very fair about trying to allocate. If time was remaining, I basically took questions as people had them. We didn't assign people. Whoever put up their hand at that point got on the list.

In fact, I think Mr. Julian did very well in time allocation simply because he had lots of questions. Would that be a fair comment for the committee?

[Joe Volpe, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Absolutely.

[Paul Zed, Liberal, Saint John, NB]

That's why we elected you chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

So if everybody is comfortable with that, I think Mr. Jean has circulated how the—

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

Only one copy thus far.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

It hasn't gone around? Okay.

But if we're of that understanding...maybe, Brian, you'd like to read that out simply to make sure everybody's clear on it.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

Actually, Mr. Masse, the reason we did it this way is so that everybody from every different area of Canada would have an opportunity to question the witnesses, because everybody has a unique difference.

But in English it would read as follows:

That witnesses be given 10 minutes for their opening statement; that for the questioning of witnesses, 7 minutes be allocated to each party for the first round, and that for all subsequent rounds, 5 minutes be allocated to each party for their members who have not yet spoken, starting with the Official Opposition, and any further time allowed will be allocated equally between each opposition party at the discretion of the chair.

So the key words are “that have not yet spoken”.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Masse.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

I only have a little bit of a concern, in the sense that the record might prove that your allocation was fair and just, but I would be more comfortable if there were at least another spot for us allocated in there. I would appreciate that. I think that's important.

[Paul Zed, Liberal, Saint John, NB]

Have we made it a motion?