Evidence of meeting #1 for Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics in the 40th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was amendment.
A recording is available from Parliament.
4:05 p.m.
Liberal
Michelle Simson Liberal Scarborough Southwest, ON
I so move.
(Motion agreed to) [See Minutes of Proceedings]
4:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
Concerning witnesses' expenses, I believe this is the same. Maybe I'm thinking of another committee, but there was actually a specific reference to including day care or child care costs. It was the human resources committee, yes, I can understand that. But I think it's understood that witnesses are reimbursed for any real costs incurred.
If this is acceptable, shall I put the question?
4:05 p.m.
NDP
Bill Siksay NDP Burnaby—Douglas, BC
Chair, I'd like to see that explicitly in the motion. I think it was in the last session, the last Parliament, and I'd like to see the day care provision explicitly mentioned.
4:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
Yes, there it is: “if requested, reasonable child care expenses be reimbursed”.
Members, in the minutes from the last Parliament, you can see the same motion that we're dealing with right now. It does have that there.
I assume that you would like to move that.
4:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
As an amendment, okay, that additional reference on child care expenses.
(Amendment agreed to)
(Motion as amended agreed to) [See Minutes of Proceedings]
4:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
Staff at in camera meetings: That, unless otherwise ordered, each committee member be allowed to be accompanied by one staff person at an in camera meeting—which I hope are not many.
4:05 p.m.
Conservative
Kelly Block Conservative Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, SK
Mr. Chair, I'm wondering if I could propose an amendment to what was circulated in the routine order of motions. I was noting in the minutes of the first meeting of the last committee, you also included: “in addition, each party shall be permitted to have one party staff member in attendance”. I'm wondering if we could have that included again this time around.
4:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
I believe, with the acceptance of the committee, that the member is proposing that we adopt the motion from the last Parliament, instead of the one that's here. Is that acceptable?
(Motion agreed to) [See Minutes of Proceedings]
4:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
I believe the only other item--is that correct, Mr. Hiebert--is with regard to the speaking times and the party....
4:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
Oh, I'm sorry, I missed one of the routine motions. It's on in camera meeting transcripts, which is our boilerplate text before the House--that only one copy be kept in the custody of the clerk. I don't think there's any discussion on that.
(Motion agreed to) [See Minutes of Proceedings]
4:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
At the top of page 2 of the last Parliament's minutes is the motion that was adopted by the committee. We do not have before us right now a proposed motion, but I understand that Mr. Poilievre would like to propose something to the committee.
Mr. Poilievre.
4:10 p.m.
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Nepean—Carleton, ON
Of course. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
The motion I would put forward is predicated on the obvious principle that all members of the House of Commons deserve equal treatment, regardless of which party they are in, and thus the questions and the number of questions are apportioned commensurately with the number of members each party has.
So I propose the following motion to establish a speaking and questioning order. It is as follows:
That the order of questions for the first round of the questioning shall 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—
4:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
Sorry, just for clarification, was that a double Conservative, or was that just you clearing your throat and saying it again?
It was Liberal, Conservative, Bloc, Conservative, Liberal, Conservative, Conservative?
4:10 p.m.
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Nepean—Carleton, ON
Yes. There would be two Conservatives at the end to compensate for the fact that they would be apportioned fewer questions earlier in the rounds.
If I could just conclude the motion itself,
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.
This is an important point, Mr. Chair, because in the first round you'll notice that questions are apportioned on the basis of one question per party. So if you repeat that, you are giving further weight to opposition MPs, who, despite smaller per-party numbers, would have in that round a number of questions equal to that of the government.
In other words, for example, the NDP member would have in the first round--and potentially later rounds, if we have extra time--one question to himself for the same question that is allotted to all the members on this side, giving a disproportionate advantage to his party and a larger speaking role. However, this imbalance is partly mitigated in the middle rounds, where government members and Liberal members are given more opportunity to intervene due to the greater number of members they have on the committee.
The principle is not that the Liberals, Conservatives, Bloc, or NDP have a particular number of questions. The principle really should be that each one of us is a member of Parliament. We do represent roughly the same populations, and we should have roughly the same voices. It should not be the case that one party, because it is bigger or smaller, is able to accord each individual MP in its caucus greater or less speaking time than the others. That is the basis for and the thinking behind the motion.
I put that forward, and I look forward to discussing it further with other members.
4:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
From what I see here in the second round, the only change is that the NDP loses a question and the Conservatives pick up a question. The other two parties remain the same.
Am I correct that the NDP would participate only on the first round, but never get another question in the entire meeting?
4:15 p.m.
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Nepean—Carleton, ON
If time permits, further rounds shall repeat the pattern of the first two--meaning we would go back to Liberal, Bloc, NDP, Conservative. But in fairness to this option, the individual NDP member would have as much opportunity to speak as an individual Conservative or Liberal member.
4:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
Are the members clear? Do you have any questions of Mr. Poilievre? Then maybe I'll consider commentary.
Mr. Siksay, please.
4:15 p.m.
NDP
Bill Siksay NDP Burnaby—Douglas, BC
Mr. Chair, it would be silly for me to agree to this amendment, since clearly it's aimed at limiting the New Democratic Party participation in the committee. I have to say that I think the existing formula has served the committee well. I don't think the NDP, particularly, has abused its privileges or its speaking times before the committee in the past. It certainly would not be my intention to see that happen in this Parliament either. I think the formula that has evolved over many years of practice in the committee has served the committee well.
I would make an amendment to remove everything after that, and substitute the motion that was passed in the last session.
4:15 p.m.
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Nepean—Carleton, ON
At the outset, let me say that I think Mr. Siksay has always conducted himself with the greatest of respect, and this motion is not meant to contradict that in any way. In fact, quite the contrary. As I look at the motion as written, it would permit in the first two rounds Conservatives to have five interventions for five members. Mr. Siksay and his party would have one intervention for one member, which is perfectly mathematically commensurate with the makeup of the committee.
There has been a change since the last time this committee was convened. That change was the election. During that election, the Canadian people apportioned a different makeup to this committee. That makeup is represented by increased Conservative presence. This motion merely gives the Conservatives the same per-member questioning time as the other members have, including the NDP.
Actually, the only difference is that the NDP's intervention will be seven minutes, whereas the vast majority of Conservatives--four out of five, or 80%--would have only five minutes to intervene. So we would be prepared to entertain but we would not insist upon a motion to correct that inequity. But failing a motion coming forward from our opposition colleagues, we would be prepared to proceed in a selfless fashion.
Thank you.
4:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
Seeing no further interventions, I'm going to put the question on the amendment by Mr. Siksay, which is effectively to adopt the motion as it was adopted in the last Parliament.
Is that everyone's understanding?
4:15 p.m.
Conservative
