Okay. That's all we're asking. Mr. Lessard made a good point when he said that he and I should be allowed to finish what we have to say before you intervene and interject and start pushing your position. Okay? That's all I'm saying.

This committee worked well up until now, until today. This committee--what do you mean, “no”? We got through a lot of work, we travelled together, we heard a lot of witnesses, and we brought back to Parliament lots of reports and bills that were subsequently moved through that particular house as well.

This committee worked really well. Each committee is the master of its own destiny and decides on its own rules and how it's going to work together. Since I came here in 2004, this committee has worked well together. Some of us have been on this committee since then. Mr. Lessard and I have been two who have been on this committee all that time. It's worked well because there was respect for each party that came to the table. We allowed for a question; we all learned from the questions the others asked at this table.

I would suggest to you that if this is the way we're going to go now--that we're going to start having this reflect more the House of Commons and we're going to bring in these kinds of motions that make it more difficult for those of us in third and fourth parties to actually participate in the debate here--then this committee is going to get more difficult to manage. That's all I'm suggesting to you.

I would suggest that we stick with something that I felt.... It's funny, this is the first I've heard from Ms. Yelich that this committee didn't work properly. I've sat in on other committees and I've seen other committees actually collapse under some of the dynamic that was going on at those committees. That never happened at this committee.

We worked together cooperatively as a subcommittee. We worked together cooperatively on the agendas we adopted and we got through a lot of really important and good work. I don't know why we don't want to continue in that vein, in that spirit, and in that manner in this next session coming at us.

4:05 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Dean Allison

May I speak now?

Mr. Lessard is next, followed by Mr. Chong.

4:05 p.m.

Bloc

Yves Lessard Bloc Chambly—Borduas, QC

Before I make my point, Mr. Chairman, I have a question: did you find Mr. McKay's motion in order?

4:05 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Dean Allison

It is an amendment to Mr. Lake's motion.

4:05 p.m.

Bloc

Yves Lessard Bloc Chambly—Borduas, QC

Earlier, you refused mine, which amended Mr. Lake's motion. My amendment proposed coming back to what used to be done. I don't understand here.

4:05 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Dean Allison

That was a whole different motion altogether, Mr. Lessard. This is an amendment to Mr. Lake's motion.

4:05 p.m.

Bloc

Yves Lessard Bloc Chambly—Borduas, QC

I was making it to the amendment; it could easily be made to the amendment. I don't want to dwell on procedure, Mr. Chairman, but we should not end up in a situation where the two choices you are offering change what used to work well.

My colleague, Mr. Martin, raised this earlier. There are committees, where as you know Mr. Chairman, things went badly to the point where there were strikes. Certain committees refused to sit because things were going so badly. Ours worked well, and all of a sudden today, we're told that it didn't work well. When we left in the spring, you yourself said that this was one of the committees where we had accomplished the most work. The only heavier order of reference was that of employability, but we did complete all the others. The one on employability is under way.

I find it unfortunate that today, under false pretenses, there's an attempt to change what was working well and that effectively removes the democratic nature that characterizes this committee and was underscored by the chairman of the committee in the two previous Parliaments. It is in committees that the opposition has more opportunities to ask questions. It's the only place where it can truly do so. The party in power is there to respond, because it has the power. Mr. Chairman, I'm very surprised that this is being raised today. I'm also surprised by the arguments that you yourself are submitting. I'm very surprised, Mr. Chairman.

Is there a desire here to see what used to work well suddenly work badly? I don't think that that's your intention, but that will be the result.

4:05 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Dean Allison

Thank you, Mr. Lessard.

I would just like to say that this committee has worked well. There have been individuals from the Liberal and the Conservative parties that have come up to me and said, “Listen, we prepare for this committee every week, yet we don't get a chance to ask a question.” That's all I'm trying to reconcile today.

I wouldn't anticipate they would necessarily come up to individuals, but they have come up to me and said, “We prepare for this committee. We would like an opportunity to ask questions as well.”

Madam Bonsant.

4:05 p.m.

Bloc

France Bonsant Bloc Compton—Stanstead, QC

Point of order, please. Could this meeting be suspended? There are so many discussions around the table that no one is following what's going on and we're talking for nothing. Could we stop that right now and suspend the meeting? We will resume when everyone is sitting in his place.

4:10 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Dean Allison

I have a list here. We're going to continue.

Mr. Chong, Mr. Lake, Ms. Yelich, and then Madam Bonsant.

4:10 p.m.

Bloc

Yves Lessard Bloc Chambly—Borduas, QC

Mr. Chairman, my colleague raised a matter that has to do strictly with efficiency. I think that right now, it would be important to suspend the meeting so that on our side we can examine what's going on. I understand that there are members of the Liberal Party who are interested in speaking.

4:10 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Dean Allison

Okay, I have the next person on the list.

Mr. Chong, followed by Mr. Lake and Ms. Yelich.

November 14th, 2007 / 4:10 p.m.

Conservative

Michael Chong Conservative Wellington—Halton Hills, ON

One of the fundamental principles of the House of Commons and its committees is the concept of representation by population. The fact is that the Liberals and the Conservatives on this committee, not including the chair, comprise eight out of the 11 members, or about 75% of the committee membership.

The way it was structured before gave us much less of a voice and a say on this committee in terms of interviewing the witnesses. So I think it's reasonable to go with what my colleagues Mike Lake and John McKay have proposed on the order.

Even in the proposed order we will be getting far less than our proportional membership on the committee would dictate. If we go with John McKay's suggestion, we'll be getting approximately 67% of the questioning in the first round. That's far less than our representation on the committee. To suggest that we should go in an order where we each get equal time is patently unfair.

With all due respect, I understand why my colleagues from the New Democratic Party or the Bloc might want equal time as us, but it's not fair. The fact is that we represent over 400,000 Canadians on this side of the table. The Liberals represent over 400,000 Canadians, and those Canadians have a right to have their elected representatives have a say in the interviewing of witnesses. To suggest that one member of this committee from one party should have equal say with four members of this committee from the government or four members from the opposition is not the way the House of Commons is supposed to operate.

We're coming forward with a change, but it's a reasonable change and it still underrepresents our representation on this committee with respect to the interviewing of witnesses.

I think we should proceed with the vote. If there is more discussion, let it happen, but I think we should proceed with either Mike Lake's proposal or John McKay's proposal.

4:10 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Dean Allison

We have an amendment to Mr. Lake's motion, which is Mr. McKay's.

On the list I have Mr. Lake, Ms. Yelich, and Ms. Sgro. Let's go with Mr. Lake and then Ms. Yelich and Ms. Sgro.

4:10 p.m.

Conservative

Mike Lake Conservative Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB

I want to get some clarification from Mr. McKay or somebody over there on what the amendment is right now.

4:10 p.m.

Liberal

Geoff Regan Liberal Halifax West, NS

It's Mr. McKay's amendment.

4:10 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Dean Allison

The first round would be the same as it is. The second round would follow with a Liberal, a Conservative, a Bloc, a Liberal, a Conservative, a Liberal, a Conservative, and then an NDP, for five minutes each.