Evidence of meeting #1 for Veterans Affairs in the 40th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was stoffer.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Conservative
Conservative
Greg Kerr Conservative West Nova, NS
That's my new French. It's not doing so well. My apologies. It is the speaking order one.
I'll try it again, Mr. Chair, if I could. It's in the speaking order, not in the round of questioning.
It's that the order of questions for the first round of the questioning should be as follows: Liberal, Bloc, NDP, Conservative. Questioning during the second round shall alternate between the opposition members and government members in the following fashion: Liberal, Conservative, Bloc, Conservative, Liberal, Conservative, Conservative, based on the principle that each committee member should have a full opportunity to question the witnesses. If time permits, further rounds shall repeat the pattern of the first two, at the discretion of the chair.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Sweet
I take it you probably want that repeated again, but first, Mr. Stoffer.
NDP
Peter Stoffer NDP Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS
Actually, I had my own amendment to move.
If you look at the way it is now...and for those who were here last time, you'll notice that we're down at the lonely end here. If you look at the second round, the reality is that after the second one it says NDP, and it goes Conservative, Bloc, Liberal, Conservative, Liberal, Conservative, Liberal, Conservative. We're nowhere near there. So the reality is between the second last line, between “Conservative, Liberal” and then “Conservative, Liberal”.... Between Liberal and Conservative is where I'd like to insert the NDP.
February 4th, 2009 / 3:40 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Sweet
Could I just ask you, Mr. Stoffer, to hold on to that, and we'll deal with one amendment at a time. Then we'll come back to that.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Sweet
Could you repeat that amendment and maybe just walk through it slowly, because people will have to discern the difference on their own as well.
Conservative
Greg Kerr Conservative West Nova, NS
Okay.
On the speaking order, Mr. Chair, it is that the order of questions for the first round of the questioning should be as follows: Liberal, Bloc, NDP, Conservative. Questioning during the second round shall alternate between the opposition members and government members in the following fashion: Liberal, Conservative, Bloc, Conservative, Liberal, Conservative, Conservative, based on the principle that each committee member should have a full opportunity to question the witnesses. If time permits, further rounds shall repeat the pattern of the first two, at the discretion of the chair.
Liberal
Judy Sgro Liberal York West, ON
It's Liberal, Conservative, Bloc, Conservative, Liberal, Conservative, Conservative.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Sweet
Mr. Kerr, just so the clerk can follow the amendment appropriately, does the time remain the same on the first round?
Conservative
NDP
Peter Stoffer NDP Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS
With great respect to the parliamentary secretary, what that basically means is that if the minister is here with his appropriate staff and they go into the detailed estimates or whatever it is they're doing, by the time we get to ask the second question the meeting will be over. It's just not right.
If you wish to change that a bit, I'd be happy to help you on it. But the reality is that for us to get five minutes' worth of questioning in a two-hour span simply will not do.
Conservative
Bloc
Guy André Bloc Berthier—Maskinongé, QC
I am not in favour of Mr. Kerr's motion. I move that we vote on the amendment.
Conservative
Liberal
Judy Sgro Liberal York West, ON
I think it's very important that everybody participate and have an opportunity to ask questions, but I don't think it's fair to the NDP the way this is. Frankly, I've reviewed this and I don't have any problem with the list that's in front of me. I think we should consider what was presented to us as reasonable.
I will be voting against the amendment proposed by Mr. Kerr.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Sweet
In trying to act as a conciliator as well as a chairman, I detect that there are two issues here that may be able to be married together. One is a disparity, as far as Mr. Stoffer is concerned, in the capability of the NDP to question, and one is a disparity in equal time for the Conservative Party now that there's an extra person here because of the makeup of the House.
Mr. Stoffer.
Conservative
