Official Languages Committee on June 23rd, 2011

[Dan Harris, NDP, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

I propose a new subamendment that would have four rounds of speaking.

The first round would be seven minutes. The second, third, and fourth rounds would each be of five minutes. In the first round we would go in the order of NDP, Conservative, Liberal, Conservative. The second round would be NDP, Conservative, NDP. The third round would be Conservative, NDP, Liberal. The fourth round would be Conservative, NDP, Conservative.

That was what we had discussed and come close to an agreement on at the end of the last meeting. However, I understand there were some concerns with the governing party.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Is there any debate?

Mr. Julian is next, and then Mr. Bélanger.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Harris has proposed a good solution. Despite being new to this committee and a new member of Parliament, he has found a solution that incorporates everything we discussed before.

First off, all the Conservatives get to participate. Giving all the Conservative members an opportunity to speak is a principle we support.

Second, the Liberals have twice as much speaking time than their numbers would warrant. That is a principle the committee has always adhered to in the past.

Third, it is consistent with a principle that is very important to us, that the official opposition be able to ask the first questions. In the first round, we start, and in the following rounds, the Conservatives start. I think that is a balanced approach.

I want to commend my colleague because I think his proposal takes into account everything we had previously discussed here. I hope there is unanimous consent for his proposal.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Thank you, Mr. Julian.

Mr. Bélanger, you have the floor.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

It is not clear to me that that is exactly what had been agreed upon. I would like some clarification here.

If memory serves, Mr. Harris, we had agreed on something else. In the first round, seven minutes would be allocated as you described, but in the second round, the five minutes would be allocated quite differently.

The order put forward by Mr. Gourde was this: NDP, Conservatives, NDP, Conservatives, Liberals, NDP, Conservatives, NDP, Conservatives. That is what Mr. Gourde and the government caucus wanted. Every member of the government caucus would have had an opportunity to speak. In the event of a third round, we would follow the same order as the first round, but with five minutes each. If memory serves, that was the agreement we came to on Tuesday.

Am I dreaming?

[Dan Harris, NDP, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

That was the first approach, but after a number of discussions, you said that you could live with only two opportunities to speak, not three. After that, the proposal changed.

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

That was in my absence because—

[Dan Harris, NDP, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

No, no, you were here during the discussion. That's where we were at before you—

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

The friendly amendment I had agreed to was supposed to take away a right to speak from the third party in the third round. I had agreed to that.

[Dan Harris, NDP, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

Mr. Gourde could perhaps....

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Mr. Gourde, go ahead.

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

That possibility was on the table, but we did not necessarily agree on the number of rounds.

My personal preference is having two rounds. In the first round, four people would speak and in the second round, seven people would speak. That would ensure fairness to all members. Eleven people could ask witnesses questions. We obviously came up with that arrangement very quickly, on the fly. We didn't necessarily reach a consensus.

Some people would like us to have three rounds, but I would prefer having only two. Afterwards, we would start over with the first round. We did not necessarily reach a consensus. According to the proposal before us, if we have four rounds, 13 members would speak, but we're 11. That means that at least two parties would be overrepresented. That's why I am in favour of a two-round approach. Four members would have seven minutes each in the first round, and seven members would have five minutes each in the second round. Four plus seven is eleven, the number of members on this committee. We would follow the exact same approach when starting over.

I think that would balance out the discussions. If someone could introduce a new proposal.... For instance, the proposal put forward by Royal Galipeau was interesting. I think that he was even prepared to amend it. That proposal is still on the table, and we'll have to debate it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Okay.

[Dan Harris, NDP, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

We were talking about the second, third and fourth rounds. Everyone would actually get to speak in the second round. That was my mistake.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Thank you, Mr. Harris.

Mr. Julian.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Pardon me, Mr. Chair, but I would like to get back to what Mr. Gourde proposed because he talked about it quickly. I am asking, through you, that he more slowly repeat his suggestion for the second round and that he confirm that the third round would be the same as the first round, except that the questioners would have five instead of seven minutes.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Okay. Thank you, Mr. Julian.

Mr. Gourde.

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

The first round, where questioners would have seven minutes, would have the following order: the New Democrats, the Conservatives, the Liberals and the Conservatives. In the second round, questioners would have five minutes, and the order would be the following: the Conservatives, the New Democrats, the Conservatives, the New Democrats, the Conservatives, the New Democrats and the Conservatives. That way, we would go through 11 members, and if we start over, we would proceed in the same order as in the beginning: the New Democrats, the Conservatives, the Liberals and the Conservatives. That's almost identical to the other proposals, instead of 13 to 14.... In addition, it helps balance out the number of minutes among all the members. There would still be two rounds: the first and the second. And then we would start over from the beginning.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Thank you, Mr. Gourde.

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

Mr. Chair, I just want to point out that, when witnesses are here for two hours, if there are two witnesses, we get 10 minutes each. Therefore, we would have time for a third round. That would balance things out for all the parties. Even if the witnesses are here only for an hour and then we move on to something else, we would usually start over as in the first round. We would still distribute floor time evenly for all the parties. I think that arrangement could be acceptable.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Mr. Gourde moved a proposal, but it's not a live motion. The committee is currently dealing with Mr. Harris's subamendment.

We're still on the subamendment of Mr. Harris. Once we've disposed of that, we'll go to the original amendment of Mr. Bélanger, or if you care to move that subamendment to Mr. Bélanger's amendment at that time, you can do that.

[Royal Galipeau, Conservative, Ottawa—Orléans, ON]

Is that something I could have tabled a week ago?

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Yes.

We're still on the subamendment of Mr. Harris, so let's deal with it first. If there's no further debate on the amendment of Mr. Harris, I'll call the question.

I see a hand. Go ahead, Mr. Harris.

[Dan Harris, NDP, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

During our previous discussions the amount of speaking time was questioned. As the amendment stands, it would give the Conservatives 34 minutes of speaking time, the NDP 27 minutes--

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

I'm sorry to interrupt. To clarify, which amendment are you talking about?