Official Languages Committee on June 21st, 2011

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Mr. Chair, that is why I pointed out that there is one party less. I don't think we'll have four rounds; I think we'll have five.

I do not want to be a pain, but the government could give its members the chance to speak. I noticed that it's always the same person who asks questions. Mr. Gourde, you never did that. I acknowledge that you let the others speak.

I remember that you said you wanted each member of your party to have a chance to speak, but it was always the same person who spoke. Your party didn't give them the chance to.

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, QC]

Perhaps we changed strategies.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Time will tell.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Mr. Harris.

[Dan Harris, NDP, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

I did a calculation. What is being proposed would give five turns to the Conservatives, four turns to the NDP and three turns to the Liberals. As for the number of minutes, it would be 27 minutes for the Conservatives, 22 minutes for the NDP and 17 minutes for the Liberals.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Thank you.

Mr. Trottier, you have the floor.

[Bernard Trottier, Conservative, Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON]

I would basically like to say the same thing as Mr. Gourde. I think that what is important is that all members have the chance to take part in the discussions. By giving 27 minutes out of I don't know how many minutes total… Seven of our members are sitting on the committee, and we are afraid of not having the opportunity to take part in the discussions.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

There are six members.

[Bernard Trottier, Conservative, Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON]

There are six members, if we exclude the chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Mr. Lauzon, it's your turn.

[Guy Lauzon, Conservative, Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON]

Mr. Coderre mentioned two hours. In the last session, the sessions often lasted one hour and there were two witnesses. If we operate in the same way, the members on this side are often going to ask one or two questions. I don't think it's really fair. If we have a witness here for one hour, we need to have at least half the time or more because we are the majority. Maybe it works if it's a two-hour meeting, but if the meeting is only one hour, it doesn't work. It isn't equal, it isn't fair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Welcome, Mr. Weston. To bring you up to speed, we are considering the subamendment moved by Monsieur Godin. Once we have disposed of that, we're going to consider the subamendment moved by Mr. Harris, and once we have disposed of that, we're going to consider the amendment moved by Mr. Bélanger.

Currently, the proposed amendment by Monsieur Godin is the following: that the first round be seven minutes, NDP, Liberal Conservative; the second round be five minutes, NDP, Conservative, Liberal; the third round be five minutes, Conservative, NDP, Conservative; and the fourth round be five minutes, NDP, Conservative, Liberal.

Is there any further debate on this amendment?

Monsieur Lauzon.

[Guy Lauzon, Conservative, Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON]

As for the matter of time, if the person testifies for 10 minutes, for example, we would have two rounds, one of seven minutes and the other of five minutes. This would equal a third of the time allotted. Even though we are the majority, we would only have a third of the time to ask questions of a person who would testify for one hour. It isn't fair and doesn't make sense.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Monsieur Godin.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

You are saying that it wouldn't be fair for you to have only three questions in the House of Commons?

[Guy Lauzon, Conservative, Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON]

Actually, we shouldn't have only a third of the time allocated to the committee.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

I understand.

[Guy Lauzon, Conservative, Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON]

Actually, we would be able to ask only a third of the questions. Do you think that would be fair?

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Me? No.

[Guy Lauzon, Conservative, Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON]

This isn't going to work.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Monsieur Bélanger.

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

I'm a little confused. We started with the principle that all members of the committee should be able to speak. Even though it isn't necessarily how we have always worked, I can accept that.

But we went further. We're insisting on respecting a percentage of the time, so that we have the majority of the minutes. But there is also the matter of knowing what would be appropriate in relation to how we operate.

I don't know what will happen. I know that we were waiting for Mr. Weston to arrive so that the government party has the majority. Now that he is here, I imagine that he will dispose of the matter as he wishes. I'll do a test. I'm going to see if people really do want to compromise and work together. If we gave the Conservatives another turn at the very end of the fourth round, all the Conservative members could speak in the four rounds, at the discretion of the parliamentary secretary, of course.

I am going to confirm what Mr. Godin said this morning. And I also said it at the last meeting, but Mr. Godin wasn't there. In your case, you let your members speak. But I have been in situations where the parliamentary secretary didn't let the other members speak. Some members that we are putting this to can also attest to that, but let's stay with the matter at hand.

Mr. Chair, Mr. Lauzon—or Mr. Gourde, I can't remember anymore—just said that if we gave the Conservatives another turn in the fourth round, only five Conservatives would get to speak. But this is no longer an issue because if this happens, everyone around the table would be able to speak.

Perhaps we could present a new subamendment, but we still have to be careful. Maybe I'll wait until we resolve the current subamendment. So if it were rejected, I would propose this second subamendment to find out, once again, to what extent we are ready to collaborate or if there is no willingness to collaborate.

Mr. Chair, I will close by asking you to remember what I said at the beginning, that we could hand this to the steering committee to determine whether we can somehow agree. Otherwise, we risk spending two hours here this morning for nothing.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

I'm not going to allow the subamendment to be put because we've already nested too many subamendments, but if we dispose of the proposal by Monsieur Godin, then we can to back to the one by Mr. Harris. If that's not satisfactory, somebody can move another subamendment.

Is there any further debate on Monsieur Godin's proposed amendment?

Seeing none, I'll call the question on the subamendment. All those in favour of the subamendment as moved by Monsieur Godin?

(Subamendment negatived)

The subamendment is defeated, so we're now back to the subamendment as moved by Monsieur Harris.

Monsieur Bélanger.

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

I propose a subamendment to Mr. Harris' amendment.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Let's dispose of his first, and if that--