Official Languages Committee on June 23rd, 2011

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

I want to remind the committee that I moved that motion in two steps. What was just read is the basic principle, without any allusion to the specific members. It simply says that ten minutes are allocated for the questioning of witnesses, that members have seven minutes in the first round, five minutes in the second round, and so on.

As for the list of questioners, that's a proposal I had introduced at a different time. In fact, I had not yet put it forward. I discussed it at Mr. Julian's request, since he wanted to know what I was hiding behind it. For the sake of openness, I told him what I was hiding behind it. I had not yet introduced the proposal. I had simply put it on the table to inform all the members of it. All I have proposed so far is what you just read.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Mr. Julian.

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

Mr. Chair, I never asked what Mr. Galipeau was hiding. I know that he never hides anything; he's always open. I just wanted to get an idea of the government party's intentions.

I think that we could proceed in two stages, but it seems to me that you already have an idea of how you want to proceed. It would be better to simply move this amendment, whether it's by Mr. Galipeau or Mr. Gourde. When we decide something, the decision should be considered as a whole.

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

Mr. Chair, last week, I announced the following order, but I did not propose it formally. The order of questioning for the first round would be the following: government party members, official opposition members, government party members, third party members. In the second round, questions would be asked in turn by government party members and official opposition members in the following order: government party, official opposition, government party, official opposition, government party, official opposition, government party. The principle is to give all the members an opportunity to question the witnesses. In the remainder of the time, the next series of questions would follow the speaking order of the first two rounds, at the discretion of the chair. That's what I told the committee.

The amendment I will move today takes into account the discussions I have been listening to over the last three meetings, but I will make a small change, which affects only the first round. Rather than proceeding with the government party, the official opposition, the government party and the third party, we would have the official opposition, which would go first, followed by the government party, then the third party and, to wrap things up, the government party. That would be the procedure in the first round, and the second round would be exactly as I set it out.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Thank you, Mr. Galipeau.

The motion now before us is the one Mr. Galipeau moved last week.

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

Including the order.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Mr. Weston, go ahead.

[John Weston, Conservative, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm thinking about this proposal. First, I want to assure Mr. Bélanger and the other members that I'm here to participate vigorously in this committee in the spirit of cooperation. I have been a member of this committee before, and I had the opportunity to go with Mr. Bélanger to a school in his riding. That was a good initiative and I supported it. I will do the same in the future.

The proposal Mr. Galipeau just put forward reflects all the principles and provides the Liberals with a very privileged position in the first round. All three parties represented here will have the opportunity to take the floor, as will all the members.

If there is a disadvantage in the House of Commons during oral question period, it's for individuals like myself, the backbenchers, who don't regularly get the opportunity to participate. Therefore, I want to participate here and I also want all my colleagues to have the right to speak. It may not be a perfect proposal, but it reflects all the principles we have been talking about. In addition, according to parliamentary protocol, members of the official opposition will take the floor first. That's enough for me.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Just to be clear, Mr. Weston, Mr. Galipeau introduced during debate the idea of the order of questioners, but we're not actually on that motion right now. We're on the original motion as moved by Mr. Galipeau last week, which concerns ten minutes for opening statements, seven minutes for the first round, and five minutes for the second round. He's going to formally move his motion concerning the order of members after we dispose of the motion that is currently in front of us, I presume.

Just to be clear, the motion in front of us that we're debating is the one moved by Mr. Galipeau:

That, at the discretion of the chair, the witnesses from any one organization shall be allowed up to ten (10) minutes to make their opening statement. During the questioning of witnesses there shall be allocated seven (7) minutes for the first round of questioning, and thereafter five (5) minutes shall be allocated to each questioner in the second and subsequent rounds of questioning.

That's what we're discussing and debating right now.

Mr. Julian is next, followed by Mr. Harris.

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

I'd call the question.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

If there is no further debate, I will call the question.

Mr. Harris, did you have anything to say?

[Dan Harris, NDP, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

No, that's fine. I just wanted to follow up on what Mr. Julian said earlier, which was that when we originally asked for the proposed speaking order, it was just to seek out the context as to why we were looking at changing the number of minutes.

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

That is how I understood it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Is there any further debate?

(Motion agreed to)

The motion is adopted. Thank you.

We have one half of the final routine motion adopted.

Mr. Galipeau, go ahead.

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

Mr. Chair, it's out of openness that I suggested to the committee the order that I will now propose. I should have resisted: given the fact that my motion was unanimously supported, we would have already adopted it three meetings ago.

I won't mention the order I was thinking of then and will just stick to what I announced earlier today.

I propose that the order of questioning in the first round be as follows: official opposition, government party, third party and government party. In the second round, all questions would be asked in turn by the members of the government and opposition parties, in the following order: government party, official opposition, government party, official opposition, government party, official opposition, government party. The principle is that all members should have the opportunity to question the witnesses. If there is any time remaining, the next rounds will follow the speaking order of the first two rounds at the discretion of the chair.

It's clear that, in the event of a third round, we would proceed as in the first round. On that occasion, a representative of the third party would have the right to speak.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

We are going to debate that proposal.

Mr. Bélanger.

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

I have an amendment, that at the end of the second round, we give the third party an opportunity to speak.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

We have an amendment moved. We have the main motion, moved by Monsieur Galipeau,

and an amendment from Mr. Bélanger.

Is there debate on the amendment?

It has been moved by Mr. Bélanger that, at the end of the second round, the third party be given an opportunity to speak.

Is there any debate on Mr. Bélanger's amendment?

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

Mr. Chair, since I have moved an amendment, perhaps I should provide some explanation.

What is happening here is very interesting, and I think it will probably catch the attention of parliamentary procedure experts at some point. We are talking about certain principles, one of which has always been upheld. I think that if we turn our backs on it, we risk doing a disservice to Parliament. Previously established precedents could come back to haunt us one day. According to the principle I am referring to, every party should have the opportunity to speak in every round. The majority will decide if it does not wish to adhere to that principle, and I understand that. But we are talking about principles, and the majority needs to understand that. I will stop there to see what everyone thinks.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Go ahead, Mr. Harris.

[Dan Harris, NDP, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

I'm totally fine with the amendment. Certainly I appreciate Mr. Galipeau's changing the order in the first round, which partially recognizes the parliamentary tradition that the official opposition leads off questioning. Continuing in that vein, the third party having the opportunity to speak in each round, or close to it, is also an important tradition to uphold. Certainly we appreciate the government's efforts in the past and the governing parties' efforts in the past, when we were the third or fourth party, to keep that going to make sure that all voices were heard.

We understand the principle of trying to give every person at least one speaking opportunity. I can understand that. Mr. Bélanger is the only person from the third party on the committee. Whenever I participate in debates anywhere, inevitably different people ask different questions, and you come up with potentially more questions after you have already spoken. At least the way this is proposed, even if I have already spoken, I can pass on the question to my colleagues so that they can follow up later on in the debate. That opportunity certainly exists on the governing party side, and we should make sure that it exists for the third party as well.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Thank you, Mr. Harris.

Go ahead, Monsieur Aubin.

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would like to move a friendly subamendment to Mr. Bélanger's amendment. If everyone is open to the idea of the Liberal Party speaking in the second round, I think that round should start with the New Democratic Party. That way, there would be a constant rotation between parties in our discussions, and the Conservatives would not have the floor at the end of the first round and at the beginning of the second. We could add the third party at the end of the second round, between two government members, which would produce the following order: New Democrats, Conservatives, New Democrats, Conservatives, New Democrats, Conservatives, Liberals and Conservatives.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Thank you, Mr. Aubin.

We now have a subamendment in front of us.

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

Our chair does not try to settle matters amicably.