Human Resources Committee on Nov. 19th, 2007

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

We'll get the meeting started.

Welcome back to the second meeting of the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities.

We've asked the clerk to hand out to everyone all the motions that we had the last time around. You'll notice that there aren't two pieces of paper, so we'll make sure we're not confused. Hopefully, we can get through our routine proceedings today.

If you look at the list, the first three have been dealt with. We have the Library of Parliament; we have the chair being authorized to hear witnesses; and as well, we've struck the subcommittee on agenda and procedure. So now we'll get back to what was most contentious last time, the hearing of evidence and the order in which it will be heard.

Mr. Lake, followed by Mr. Savage.

We'll start taking names right now.

Mr. Lake.

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB]

I'm just taking a look at the note we got from the clerk. There'd be one little change, and I guess I'll just move it again.

You can figure out the wording at the beginning. The first round would be for seven minutes each, and would go Liberal, Bloc, NDP, Conservative; and the second round would be for five minutes each, and would go Liberal, Conservative, Bloc, Liberal, Conservative, NDP; and each subsequent round would basically be two-question rounds alternating between the opposition and government for five minutes each.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Okay, so that's the motion I have before the table.

Did you want to speak to it any further, Mr. Lake, or should I go to Mr. Savage?

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB]

I don't need to.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

You'll leave it at that.

Okay, Mr. Savage, sir.

[Michael Savage, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Thank you, Chair.

We obviously were stuck on this last time, so I think we've all been giving this some consideration.

On our side, we have reflected on this. Those of us who were on this committee before feel that the way it was before was a reasonable way of doing business at this committee. So we will vote against this motion, and then I will propose a motion to go back to the rules of procedures that existed before prorogation.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you.

Is there any more discussion on this?

(Motion negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings]).

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Mr. Savage wants to propose something, and then, Mr. Lake, I'll put you back on the speaking order.

Mr. Savage.

[Michael Savage, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

In terms of proposing something, perhaps it would be just as simple if I proposed that in hearing evidence we use the same protocol that we used the last time this committee met.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

So it would be the way it's written out here right now.

[Michael Savage, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Yes, but perhaps with the change that the third-round back-and-forth between the opposition and the government would begin with the Liberal Party.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Okay.

Mr. Lake.

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB]

That's interesting. I'm not sure what the rationale is for that. Again, I think we determined last time, or there seemed to be some agreement then, that it was a completely unfair allocation of time.

It seems to me that in fairness, as we go through this process, we should have the time corresponding as closely as possible to the number of members we have in the House or in committee. Obviously the last time around we had a situation where we had the NDP member, one of 30 members in the House, getting to ask two questions before two Conservative MPs, out of the four sitting at the table, out of 125 or 126 members in the House that seem to be increasing on a fairly regular basis.

It seems there's definitely a fundamental unfairness. Obviously I don't think we'll be able to have a vote on this until we get this resolved, because we're simply not going to go for two rounds of four questions; we're not going to go for a 25% ratio, as we did last time. It's just not going to happen.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Okay, we've got a list going here. I've got Ms. Dhalla, followed by Mr. Lessard.

[Ruby Dhalla, Liberal, Brampton—Springdale, ON]

I just wanted to ask a question, Mr. Chair. Perhaps the clerk would be able to answer it.

You had stated in the last meeting, and it also states here, that the list of routine motions passed out to us or sent to us is actually from the committee on foreign affairs. Is that correct?

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

This one is not, no.

[Ruby Dhalla, Liberal, Brampton—Springdale, ON]

But the one that has been passed out does say subcommittee on agenda and procedure.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Sorry, one of the additional ones passed out last week was from the committee on foreign affairs. The one handed out today was from our routine motions from last term.

[Ruby Dhalla, Liberal, Brampton—Springdale, ON]

Okay. I just wanted to double-check.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thanks.

Mr. Lessard is next.

[Yves Lessard, Bloc, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

First, I would like to remind my Conservative colleague that we did not make any decisions last week.

Also, I do not share his opinion on the assessment based on number. It should be remembered that, unlike the previous government, this is a minority government. The allocation established in the previous two sessions was done on the basis of a minority government. It is therefore completely normal for the opposition to have an extra say based on the majority it represents in the House; I would also like to point out that we have taken into consideration the fact that the opposition has to be able to ask questions more often than the government since the government has the advantage of being able to speak more often than the opposition, through the Minister or various House representatives.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you, Mr. Lessard.

I now have on the list Mr. Chong, followed by Mr. Savage.

[Michael Chong, Conservative, Wellington—Halton Hills, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The previous routine motion that we had here in committee is unfair to the Liberal members of committee and unfair to the Conservative members of committee, because the previous routine motion, as I understand it, has the first two rounds according each of the parties equal time. That's not fair, because between the two parties we clearly have eight of the 11 members on this committee.

I think there should be a little more proportionality about this, so I would be prepared to modify this previous routine motion so that the Liberal members and the Conservative members have a fair amount of time on this committee.

As it presently stands, in the first two rounds we get a quarter of the questions and the Liberal members get a quarter of the questions. That certainly doesn't reflect our membership on the committee: we have four out of the 11 members on this committee, and the Liberals have four out of 11 members. That's almost 40%. I think it's reasonable for us to have 35% or 40% of the questions in the first two rounds, so I would propose that we come up with an amendment or a change to the previous routine motions so that there's some more proportionality in it.

Otherwise you get into the situation in which the New Democrat member on this committee, Mr. Chair, has a quarter of the questions in the first two rounds. The NDP doesn't have a quarter of the seats in the House; they certainly don't have a quarter of the members on this committee. My constituents and the constituents of other members on this committee have every right to be represented, have every right to question witnesses, have every right to make interventions. I don't think it's fair that a party with only 10% of the seats in the House would be accorded 25% of the questioning time, so I think it's in the interests of the Liberal members of the committee, as it is of the Conservatives, not to go with the previous routine motion.

The previous routine motion had a first round of seven minutes. It went Liberal, Bloc, New Democrats, Conservatives. The second round was of five minutes: Liberal, Bloc, New Democrat, Conservatives. How is that fair for members of either the Conservative Party on this committee or the Liberal Party?

I think we should change it to better reflect the proportionality of the representation we have in this committee, and that's what Mr. Lake's proposal was to do. If you don't like that proposal—speaking through you, Mr. Chair, to the Liberal members of the committee—why don't we come up with an alternative?

You're short-changing yourselves, with 25% of the questions in the first two rounds; we're getting short-changed as well. In other words, eight out of the 11 members are getting half the questions in the first two rounds. That's not fair. I think we should work together to come up with a first and second round that are a little more proportional to our representation.

I'm willing to forgo some of that to ensure that the New Democrats have an ability to ask questions in the first two rounds, as members of the Bloc have, but the previous routine motion that the committee operated under is not fair, and it's frankly not reflective of the rules under which parliamentary committees should operate. There's a concept here that we have our members on this committee in proportion to our representation in the House; therefore, we should also have some proportionality about the number of questions we get to ask witnesses.

Hopefully we can come to a quick agreement on this, so that we don't have a protracted discussion.

Maybe, as was suggested to me, Mr. Chair, we could suspend for five minutes to work something out and then continue in five minutes.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Let me just hear what Mr. Savage has to say, and then we can come back to discuss it.

Mr. Savage, and then Mr. Lake.

[Michael Savage, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

The rules as they existed last year were rules that those of us who were on the HRDC committee inherited after we came on at Christmastime. Presumably they worked before that. I didn't hear a lot of complaints last year from members who were on the committee that they weren't getting enough time, when I was on this committee.

These are rules that have been in place. We feel that this is a committee that's worked. We've all heard about the dirty tricks the government was bringing in—the manual. We've never seen evidence of this here. I've spoken in the House about this committee and how it actually works, and I have a high regard for my colleagues from the Bloc and the NDP as I have for those from the government side.

These are rules we've inherited that have worked. I would listen to some proposed amendment, but I would have to suggest, while giving it some consideration, that the most important thing for this committee is that we have a system that works, that reflects the views of the members of the committee, and that can get work done. I've seen work done at this committee under these rules. If somebody else has a better proposition, then....

I don't like the one that was presented to us; I prefer the one that exists.