Veterans Affairs Committee on June 21st, 2011

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

Could you repeat that?

[Eve Adams, Conservative, Mississauga—Brampton South, ON]

At five minutes, Conservative--

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

Sorry, this is after the witness is finished.

[Eve Adams, Conservative, Mississauga—Brampton South, ON]

Correct. It would be Conservative, NDP, Conservative, Liberal, Conservative, NDP, Conservative. It would alternate between the government and the opposition: government, opposition, government, opposition.

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

With respect, I would disagree with that. In my 14 years on the Hill, in every committee, whether it is a majority or a minority government, the opposition has always questioned first. It's always been the opposition that starts the questioning. If you wish, we could go NDP first and then Conservative.

I remember the last time I was here, sitting in the back, we got whatever dregs were left. In fairness to Mr. Casey, we could go NDP, Conservative, Liberal, Conservative, NDP, Conservative. That way, eventually, at the end of the day, each member would have a chance. That's what we tried to do last time. Every member had at least one opportunity to ask a question or two. In terms of starting the rotation, it was always the opposition that started first.

[Eve Adams, Conservative, Mississauga—Brampton South, ON]

Could I suggest the following, then? We could start with the NDP, and then Conservative, Liberal, Conservative, NDP, Conservative, Conservative.

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

Fine. I agree with that.

[Eve Adams, Conservative, Mississauga—Brampton South, ON]

Then the next round would go to four minutes--NDP, Conservative, NDP, Conservative--and then we would start again. That way, everyone would have asked a question.

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

And if there is an opportunity at the end, the Liberal member could ask another question.

[Brian Storseth, Conservative, Westlock—St. Paul, AB]

Could we leave that to the discretion of the chair?

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

Yes, at the discretion of the chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Greg Kerr]

Next on the list is Mr. Casey.

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

This has come up in some other committees, and we've done a bit of homework on it. The last time there was a big majority, 2000 through 2004, the speaking time for all the parties was divided evenly.

What I suggest, and what I request for your consideration, is that at a minimum I be afforded an opportunity to question in both the first and second rounds. I ask that I be slotted in to the second round as well, that there be a spot for the Liberals.

[The Chair, Conservative, Greg Kerr]

Reaction?

Mr. Storseth.

[Brian Storseth, Conservative, Westlock—St. Paul, AB]

Mr. Chair, I don't want to belabour this point, but I believe that a committee is not necessarily representative of political parties but rather of members of Parliament. It is a right of all members of Parliament to be treated equally. You should be allotted your fair time, as is everybody else. I believe Mr. Stoffer is being very generous, more generous than the Liberals were in their official opposition role, by ensuring you get to ask the second opposition question.

One of the key principles, though, that we have to respect on all sides is that as members in this committee we all have parliamentary privileges and we should all be treated the same. Everybody should have the opportunity to ask a question before any member gets a chance to ask two questions.

[The Chair, Conservative, Greg Kerr]

Okay.

Mr. Casey again.

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

One of the difficulties I have with being allowed to ask questions only in the first round is that other things invariably will come up that will need to be followed up on. That's why I would ask that I be given an opportunity to question in the second round as well.

[The Chair, Conservative, Greg Kerr]

Are there other comments?

[Eve Adams, Conservative, Mississauga—Brampton South, ON]

Mr. Casey, may I respectfully suggest that there will be four members of this committee who will only be entitled to ask questions for four minutes and that you will in fact receive a greater privilege than those four members?

I do concur with my colleague on the opportunity for everyone to pose at least one question before we go back and allow one person to start posing second questions. I think, though, that at the end of the day we do have an earnest desire to better the lives of our veterans, and we can leave some of this to the discretion of the chair. I would suggest that we go with what has been suggested. We would begin with the NDP, we would continue for five minutes each, and then the last four speakers would speak for four minutes each.

[The Chair, Conservative, Greg Kerr]

Is there anything new to add to the discussion?

Mr. Stoffer.

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

I'm just questioning why we have five minutes and not seven?

[An hon. member]

Yes.

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

It's customary that it would go back to seven minutes each, or sometimes even 10 minutes. I wonder why it is five minutes to start the initial one. Usually you have seven minutes, and then the second round goes to five minutes. I just wonder why the parliamentary secretary would think that five minutes for the opening is sufficient.

[The Chair, Conservative, Greg Kerr]

Before she answers, I would interject to say that everybody agrees that 10 minutes wouldn't work because you couldn't get all the members in. That would be excessive.

Do you want to respond?

[Eve Adams, Conservative, Mississauga—Brampton South, ON]

I was hoping that more individuals would have an opportunity to speak. The five minutes allow a hearty discussion. I have spoken with members of a number of other committees and there are a few committees that are actually moving towards five minutes.