Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I want to start by saying what an honour it is to be a member. And it was in keeping with that spirit of privilege that I wrote this motion regarding the right of every member of the Standing Committee on Official Languages to speak. First I will read the motion, and then I will explain the thinking behind it.
It reads as follows:
That the actual Committee's routine motion regarding the questioning of the witnesses be rescinded and that the Standing Committee on Official Languages, based on the principle that each committee member should have a full opportunity to question the witnesses, replace it with the following:
That witnesses shall be allowed up to ten (10) minutes to make their opening statement;
And that during the questioning of witnesses, at the Chair's discretion:
For the first round, seven (7) minutes be allocated to the first questioner of each party in the following order: Liberal Party, Bloc Québécois, New Democratic Party, Conservative Party;
And thereafter, five (5) minutes shall be allocated to each questioner, alternating between the Opposition members and Government members, in the following order: Liberal Party, Conservative Party, Bloc Québécois, Conservative Party, Liberal Party, and Conservative Party.
If time permits, further rounds shall be at the discretion of the Chair.
I want to take a few minutes to explain why I decided to move such a motion before this committee. First of all, the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure had a discussion about changing the first round—it was an official opposition motion—to seven minutes, instead of starting with a round of five minutes, as we do now.
Of course, I was concerned. I have long been concerned by the fact that a number of committee members, on the Conservative side, never get a chance to speak when we meet with witnesses. I would just like to read committee practice to illustrate what happens in committee.
Committee practice is the body of unwritten rules governing committee proceedings. It consists of procedures that have developed over time and are viewed as standard operating practice. For example, while there is no Standing Order to that effect, the normal practice is to have government members sit to the right of a committee chair and opposition members sit to the left.
In the absence of written rules, a committee can refer to practice when the members are uncertain as to how to proceed on a particular issue. Practice may also be used as a factor to be taken into consideration by a committee chair who is required to make a ruling. The starting point in these circumstances is to examine how the committee proceeded in the past. If the analysis must be carried further, the committee can then examine the practice of other committees of the House and the practice of the House itself, if it can be applied to the committee’s proceedings.
During their proceedings, committees follow established practice. By decision of the majority of their members, they can, however, deviate from or adapt practice depending on their needs. If a situation guided by practice arises frequently and becomes a source of concern and interest for the members of a committee, the committee can decide to adopt a written rule to deal with the situation, which would have to be observed.
Now I want to speak to a few of the points from that excerpt. First of all, it talks about established practice. I have been a member for a year and a half now, and I was told when I came here that the practice of this committee was to proceed by rounds, as is traditionally the case, where opposition members speak a lot more than members on this side do.
More and more, I see how this affects the very spirit of those who are not given a chance to speak. Those who really want to participate but who do not have the right to do so feel that they have no influence, that their enthusiasm is being stifled and that the committee's is as well. I find that partisanship is playing an ever-expanding role in the practices of this committee, given how the rounds are organized. Every member of this committee is not given the chance to contribute.
The excerpt also talks about the way in which the other committees operate. In the case of the subcommittee, a comparison with the other committees was requested. I will read some quotes describing the procedures of the other committees, for the benefit of all the members here today, to show that our committee's system is the absolute worst. Whether you consider justice, fairness, balance, equal participation or a sense of value, we are the absolute worst of any committee on Parliament Hill.
I will tell you how the other committees operate. This is what the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs does:
That witnesses be given ten (10) minutes to make their opening statement; That during the questioning of witnesses the time allocated to each questioner be as follows: The first round of questioning in the following order: Liberal, seven (7) minutes, Bloc Québécois, seven (7) minutes, NDP, five (5) minutes and Conservative, seven (7) minutes;
Every party speaks once. Then each party gets five minutes in the following order: Liberal Party, Conservative Party, Bloc Québécois, Conservative Party, Conservative Party and New Democratic Party. It is clear that even the system of the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs is more balanced and that four members of the Conservative Party are given the chance to speak. In contrast, the Liberal Party speaks twice, and the same goes for the Bloc Québécois and the New Democratic Party, which is much fairer than our system.
The Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food uses the following system:
That witnesses shall be allowed up to ten (10) minutes to make their opening statement. During the questioning of witnesses, there be allocated seven (7) minutes for the first round of questioning, and that thereafter five (5) minutes shall be allocated to each questioner in the second and subsequent rounds of questioning at the discretion of the Chair.
That the Order of questions for the first round of questioning shall be as follows: Liberal, Bloc Québécois, NDP and Conservative (CPC). Questioning during the second round shall alternate between the Opposition members and Government members, in the following fashion: Liberal, Conservative, Bloc, Conservative, Liberal, Conservative, based on the principle that each committee member should have a full opportunity to question the witnesses.
And further rounds shall be at the discretion of the chair.
I think the principle whereby each committee member must have a full opportunity to question the witnesses is really very important. That is fairness in a committee. My motion is not based on the ideal model, which would be to allow every committee member to ask questions once before any member had the chance to ask questions in the second round. In my opinion, that would be the best system. A number of committees follow that model.
I knew that members on the other side had some concerns. With my motion, everyone has an opportunity to speak once, except one member of the Conservative Party. That shows I am open to the idea of giving those on the other side a bit more. I am also open to the idea of seven minutes, put forward by the opposition.
I belive that my motion is very fair and balanced, despite the fact that other committees use the fairest system of all, where everyone has a chance to speak once before the second round begins.
In the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development, witnesses have ten minutes to make their statement. During the questioning of witnesses, seven minutes are allocated to a questioner from the official opposition, and seven minutes are allocated to a questioner from the other parties, starting with the Bloc Québécois, followed by the New Democratic Party and finally the Conservative Party. Thereafter, five minutes are allocated to each subsequent questioner until each member has had the chance to question the witness, alternating between the opposition and government parties. This is an example where more members have a chance to speak and to feel as though they are members of a committee that works well together and that values all of them equally.
The Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage starts by allocating ten minutes to the witnesses for their opening statement. Then, during the questioning of witnesses, five minutes are allocated to the first questioner of each party. In the second round, five minutes are allocated to the Liberal Party, the Bloc Québécois and the Conservative Party. In the third round, five minutes are allocated to the Liberal Party, the Conservative Party and the New Democratic Party. This system gives many people a chance to speak. It is not like that in our committee, where someone can speak three or four times before someone else has even had a chance to speak once. It may not be the best approach, but it is still fairer than ours.
The Standing Committee on International Trade allocates ten minutes to the witnesses to make their opening statement. Then seven minutes are allocated for the first round of questioning, and five minutes for the second. The order of questions is the same as usual. During the first round of seven minutes, a questioner from each party has a chance to speak. In the second round, questioning alternates between opposition and government members, as follows: Liberal Party, Conservative Party, Bloc Québécois, Conservative Party, Liberal Party, Conservative Party and Conservative Party again. It is based on the principle that every committee member should have a full opportunity to question the witnesses. There again, this system is fairer and allows every member to feel valued.
The Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration allocates ten minutes to the witnesses to make their opening statement. During the first round of questioning, seven minutes are allocated to a questioner from each party. In the second round, five minutes are allocated in the following order: Liberal Party, Bloc Québécois, Conservative Party, Conservative Party again, Liberal Party, Conservative Party and once again Conservative Party. Everyone has a chance to ask questions once before a member of any party asks questions a second time. The Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration's system is the best.
The Standing Committee on the Environment and Sustainable Development works exactly the same way. No member is allowed to ask questions a second time until every member has had a chance to ask questions. That is so everyone feels valued and appreciated.
I hope that the members of the opposition will realize that this has nothing to do with parties but with the value attached to committee members. That is important, it downplays partisanship and gives every member the right to speak, as should be the case.
Now let us take a look at the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics. It gives witnesses ten minutes and then seven minutes to a questioner from each party. In the second round, five minutes are allocated to the committee members in the following order: Liberal Party, Conservative Party, Bloc Québécois, Conservative Party, New Democratic Party, Liberal Party and Conservative Party.
Once again, we see that the Conservatives have a chance to speak. The Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics does not have the best system, but it is much better than what we have here in the Standing Committee on Official Languages.
The Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development allocates ten minutes to witnesses and seven minutes to each party. In the second round, five minutes are again allocated to each questioner, alternating between government members and opposition members. By the end of the second round, once again, everyone will have had the chance to speak and some will have had the chance to speak twice, such as Mr. Godin.
The Standing Committee on the Status of Women allocates ten minutes to witnesses to make their opening statement. During the first round of questioning, seven minutes are allocated to a representative of each party. In the second round, five minuted are allocated in the following order: Liberal Party, Conservative Party, Bloc Québécois, New Democratic Party, followed by the Conservative Party. There again, by the end of the second round, at least three members on this side of the table will have had the chance to say something.
The system used by the Standing Committee on the Status of Women is not ideal by any stretch, but its members have shown that they are slightly more accommodating than the members of this committee, which has the absolute worst system. In my opinion, that committee does not have as balanced a system as most of the other committees, but it is still better than ours. That is why I did not opt for their system; it is not balanced enough in my opinion. In any case, it is still better than what we have here.
The Standing Committee on Finance allocates ten minutes to witnesses. During the first round, questioners are allocated seven minutes in the following order: Liberal Party, Bloc Québécois, Conservative Party and the New Democratic Party. In the second round, a questioner from each party is allocated five minutes in the following order: Liberal Party, Bloc Québécois, Conservative Party, Liberal Party, Conservative Party, Liberal Party, Conservative Party and New Democratic Party. That means that by the end of the second round, the Liberals and the Conservatives will have had the chance to speak four times, and the Bloc Québécois and the NDP, twice.
