Justice Committee on Nov. 13th, 2007

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

On a point of order, it's not--

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

You have an amendment. You're going to withdraw your amendment.

(Amendment withdrawn)

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Okay then, let's vote on the question, the subcommittee on agenda and procedure, as noted in routine motions moved by Mr. Lee.

(Motion agreed to)

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

On allocation of time for questioning, Mr. Moore.

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

The only change I would suggest, Mr. Chair, is that on the second to last line after “five minutes be allocated to each subsequent questioner”, I would add, before “until”, “alternating between government and opposition parties”. Then it would continue on as it is.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Could you make that a little clearer, Mr. Moore?

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Okay. Just reverse that. Right now it says, “five minutes be allocated to each subsequent questioner (alternating between Government and Opposition parties)”. I would have “five minutes be allocated to each subsequent questioner until every member has spoken once”, and would remove “alternating between Government and Opposition parties”.

Let me just read the whole thing to you. What I'm proposing would say:

That the witnesses from any one organization shall be given 10 minutes for their opening statements. During the questioning of witnesses, there shall be allocated seven minutes for the first round of questioning and thereafter five minutes shall be allocated to each questioner in the second and subsequent rounds of questioning.

So what would be removed.... Well, you can see that what would be removed would be everything after “questioner” in the original.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Give us an example of how it's going to work.

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Sure. There'll be seven minutes on the first round of questioning. After the first round of questioning, there'll be five minutes allocated to each questioner in the second and subsequent rounds of questioning.

So all that's saying is that in the first round we'd have seven minutes, which we do, and in the second round.... I'll go to it again: “seven minutes for the first round of questioning and thereafter five minutes shall be allocated to each questioner in the second and subsequent rounds”.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Okay, the Liberal Party would start, and the Bloc, the NDP, and the Conservatives each get seven minutes--five, five, five, and five.

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

No, seven, seven, seven, and seven; five, five, five; and then five, five.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Monsieur Ménard.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

That was not clear in the presentation, but I think that Mr. Moore has clarified it. For the second round, alternating is important. I agree about having some leeway. No one will come to the committee if he has no opportunity to ask questions, and all members are democratically and legitimately elected. That is all part of the equation, but I do not want us to go back to a situation where there might be three Conservatives asking questions before the Liberals or the Bloc Québécois have their turn. We can play with the alternating, and everyone should have the right to speak, but I think alternating is important.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Mr. Lee.

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

I'm just about to enter my 20th year here, and for what it's worth, there was a time when the rounds used to circulate between the parties. In other words, round, round, round, round. Then there came a time when there were five parties in the House of Commons, and so it was round, round, round, round, over to the government for a round.

The difficulty with that as it evolved was that the government members, if it was all just party rounds and there was a majority government, would be the chopped liver. They would never get a chance to make an intervention. Why bother coming to the committee if you never get a round because the opposition parties chewed up so many rounds, and it's only a two-hour meeting?

The solution to that was to recognize that every member is, give or take a bow tie around here, equal. Therefore--and the only way we could ensure that all members were treated fairly in the rounds for questions was that after the party rounds, it then became a sequence of member rounds, and we alternated, recognizing that the government would have, we believe, roughly half the seats in the House and half the representation on the committee. That ensured everybody would get a round.

In the current iteration, if we alternate the way it says, the government would get slightly more pro rata time than they would be otherwise entitled to based on the seats in the House, because we have a minority government.

We have always relied on the chair. The chair here has been very fair over the last while. I didn't really see anything as broken. The most important thing is that as we alternate back and forth, it's imperative that any member who has not had a round be recognized before a member who has already had a round, whether it's a party round or an individual round. That is so important in keeping all members of the committee committed to the work of the committee and ensuring appropriate attendance.

The wording we have here now does that, and in the draft it's actually quite favourable to the government, for the reason I pointed out. If we alternate back and forth, 50-50, the government is going to get 50% of the rounds when they have less than 50% of the membership. The only thing that makes that fly is that the chair at some point is going to have to refrain from giving a second round to a government member in order to recognize someone in the opposition who may not have spoken yet, and who may not have had a round of questions.

I would like to leave it the way it is. It's reasonably fair that the chair seems to make it operate well. I'm reluctant to get into a situation where the government chair may be leaned on to skew the questioning. I don't think he or she would get away with it for very long, but I think the current situation works well for the government and for the opposition.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

I would like to interject a comment.

One area that I as chair have found we do have control over when it comes to the amount of time available for questions is the number of witnesses that sit at the end of the table. According to this, each presentation can take 10 minutes.

Mr. Dykstra, in the committee just before--a legislative committee--had, I believe, seven witnesses sitting at the end of the table. If each of the seven witnesses were to take their 10 minutes, that's 70 minutes gone out of a two-hour session and barely enough rounds for one speaker out of each party left. I would like to see our committee be a little more careful, if you will, in selecting witnesses so that we can at least question at length the witnesses who do show up here, without having just all presentations.

[Brian Murphy, Liberal, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

Are you talking about taking more time with the bills?

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Not necessarily, and I don't think that's going to play very significantly in how this committee works or functions.

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

As a point of information, the translation on the allocation of time is not the same in English as it is in French. The French, translated, would be that a maximum of 10 minutes be given to witnesses of an organization. Whereas on the English it says “be given”.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Most witnesses take 10 or longer.

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

But you were making the point that it says that the witnesses be given 10 minutes, and if you have seven witnesses, they eat it up. The French version gives the chair the authority, depending on the number of witnesses, to say a maximum of 10 minutes.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Which version do I pay attention to?

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

I would say that the French one is the appropriate one and that the English should be changed.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Mr. Comartin.

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

I wanted to support Mr. Lee's comments. They are ones I was going to make.

I'm not understanding, quite frankly, what Mr. Moore is trying to get at. The way this is structured now, as presented in the paper form, is actually a motion moved by the member from Wild Rose and it really was to cut me out of one of these cycles, to which I was agreeable because I was getting in three times. I'm quite prepared to give that up, because it is crucial that every member get an opportunity to ask questions. They were much better questions coming from this side of the table, I have to say, Mr. Chair, but for the purpose of democracy, I was prepared to give that up.

I'm asking Mr. Moore, seriously now, because I do not understand the rotation that his amendment would put into play.