Information & Ethics Committee on Nov. 15th, 2007

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Madame Lavallée was speaking when we suspended. Please continue.

[Carole Lavallée, Bloc, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

This interruption was almost pleasant. We heard a lot of little episodes in Mr. Thibault's life in the House of Commons.

With respect to the questioning of witnesses and the speaking order of the parties, I must emphasize that we tried this approach and it worked very badly. We never knew where we were at, and moreover, it's quite simply unfair. On the first round, the order is as follows: Liberal Party, Bloc Québécois, New Democratic Party, Conservative Party. That is fine, that is a reasonable order and that is how it should work. However, it makes no sense that on the second round, the order is this: Liberal, Conservative, Bloc Québécois, Conservative, NDP, Liberal and Conservative. That means that the Conservatives would get three more chances to speak. They will forgive me for saying so, particularly the new ones, but some, particularly Mr. Wallace, will understand what I mean, because he often repeated himself when he spoke.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Thank you, Ms. Lavallée.

[Carole Lavallée, Bloc, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

I can see the interpretation is working fine now.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Order. Mr. Wallace, please.

We have to go to Mr. Tilson now.

[David Tilson, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

I pass.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Okay.

Monsieur Asselin.

[Gérard Asselin, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I would like to support the comments made by my colleague, the member for Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert. In the interest of fairness, I think the speaking order on the first round is just fine. It looks very fair to me. If we change the order of the questioners on the second round, there could be an imbalance in the speaking time given to the parties. I think we are all elected people, we all represent a riding and we have a mandate to represent our party at this committee. All we want is equal opportunity for all parties to speak.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Thank you.

You have the floor, Mr. Hiebert.

[Russ Hiebert, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Before I make my comments, I'm wondering if Mr. Hubbard could just restate his opposition.

[Charles Hubbard, Liberal, Miramichi, NB]

I'm not sure if it's opposition, but concern. I think the concern is that we all come to the table faithfully; we sit here hour by hour; we listen to witnesses. It's my feeling that no one should have an opportunity to question twice before other members can participate. If only one Liberal were to show up and that Liberal took all three rounds, the same person doing the questioning.... I think if parties are not here by numbers, they shouldn't participate in each round until all members who sit here hearing the witness are able to.

It's very annoying to sit here for two hours and probably be left as the last one or two people. You just can't participate. So my suggestion is that no member should participate twice until each member around the table has had at least one round.

[Russ Hiebert, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale, BC]

Mr. Chair, I think that's a sensible—

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

I'll hear from Mr. Hiebert, please.

[Russ Hiebert, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale, BC]

Thank you.

I think that's a sensible proposition and it's one that I would certainly support. In fact, I know from sitting on this committee in the past that we had adopted a process whereby during the second round the questioning would alternate between the government and the opposition. I think in all fairness, with the government having more members than any single opposition party, we don't want to be shortchanged in the opportunity to participate in this committee meeting as well.

I would support the suggestion by Mr. Hubbard, but I would also support organizing the speaking order along the lines of, after the first round, when everybody has a chance to speak for seven minutes, that the questioning during subsequent rounds alternate between members of the opposition and members of the government. We can agree to a particular order if that's of interest to members.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Mr. Tilson.

[David Tilson, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

I now understand what you're trying to do, and I partially agree with it. I'm trying to support Mr. Hiebert with his point. The rationale as to why we go opposition, government, opposition is because the opposition members in the first round get all the good questions--Liberal, Bloc, New Democratic Party. My understanding was that the rationale was to even up that process somewhat.

I don't know whether you're necessarily opposing that process. You haven't really said that. You're saying every member has a chance, but you haven't really said whether you're suggesting the order. In other words, I assume that you're suggesting with this proposal you're coming forward with that the order from one side to another would continue--in other words, Mr. Hubbard, then a Conservative, then Mr. Pearson, or whatever that was.

I'd like you to clarify. It would probably be in order, Mr. Chair, for us to discuss this properly. I'm not suggesting that you're not doing your job, but if Mr. Hubbard is suggesting an amendment to this process, I want to be clear what he's saying. I think it would be appropriate that he put that in the form of an amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Thank you.

Mr. Asselin.

[Gérard Asselin, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

I am inclined to say that the current debate is out of order, Mr. Chairman. I am sure you would agree that the speaking order on the first and second round is by political party. We are not discussing who should be speaking within the party, but rather the speaking order by political party. There is a first round, and a second round. If the Liberal Party has seven minutes in the first round, and five minutes in the second, and if the three members of the Liberal Party want to share their five minutes or their seven minutes, then they do so. That is not the issue. The issue has to do with the first and second round, and the parties' speaking order. If the members of a political party decide to share their time, that is up to them. They are the ones who make that determination.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to limit the debate to the speaking order on the first and second rounds. That is the motion we have before us.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Thank you.

M. Martin.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I also am concerned with the second round of speaking. I think none of us have any problem with the first round, but in the second round, the way Mr. Hubbard recommends it, I might get bumped off altogether--the NDP would not have a role there--so I would speak against that. I would speak strongly for leaving it just the way it is.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Mr. Thibault.

[Robert Thibault, Liberal, West Nova, NS]

Mr. Chairman, I understand well the rationale of Mr. Hubbard's suggestion. I think it's worth full consideration, but I appreciate the comments that Mr. Tilson made, as well as other members.

What we're looking at here is changing a longstanding parliamentary tradition that the parties have speaking times or questioning times at committee and the party chooses how it wants to divide its time. If there's a matter of interest to the committee and there's one committee member who has done a lot of study in that area and the party agrees that member uses more than one of the speaking times, I think that's a decision for the party.

That being said, because we've always done it that way doesn't mean that it's necessarily the right way. Mr. Hubbard is making a suggestion for change, for modernization, which I think we should consider. I think it's difficult to consider it now without having it in writing and without having due diligence. I'd suggest that we go along the lines of what Mr. Tilson is suggesting, that we accept this as the operating procedure now and that a motion can be brought before the committee to verify it at a future date.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

If I may, then, colleagues, there are some interesting points raised, but the fact remains that if you look at the minutes of the meetings that this committee has had over the first session and to date, this has not been an issue. I think we're trying to create something to deal with an exception that has not occurred yet and may never occur.

I want you to understand from my perspective that Mr. Thibault I think is right, that when we have people who do the work and who are here, they will handle themselves accordingly. The chairman has the discretion of making sure that everybody who has something to contribute will have that opportunity. I think that's in the best interests of the committee and certainly of parliamentarians.

So we have a motion on the table. This “questioning of witnesses” has been moved. There has been no amendment. So I'm going to put the question.

[Carole Lavallée, Bloc, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

I would like to express my views on this motion one last time.

[Gérard Asselin, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

You could finish your remarks by presenting an amendment. The speaking order on the first two rounds is respected.