Bill C-30 (39th Parliament, 1st Session) Committee on Dec. 14th, 2006

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Mr. Chair, my question was also for members of the Liberal Party. Mr. Wilson shared that you have discretion and that you could possibly deviate from the policy sometimes. Ms. Redman mentioned the spirit of goodwill, the presumption of goodwill.

This is our first meeting. We are trying to build a structure, a framework, of fairness that you, Mr. Chair, will be using as a guide of the order of speakers. I don't think you want us to be bringing up to you on a regular basis that, Mr. Chair, we have a member who hasn't had an opportunity to ask a question yet, and yet Mr. Bigras or Mr. Cullen has had multiple opportunities to question, and we still have members here. That wouldn't be fair.

I think the framework that we lay here this morning is very important, so that we don't rely on your discretion, because then you could be challenged, if you're deviating from the structure we're giving you. This morning's discussion is very important.

The question that was asked by Mr. Jean and me is important. Could we please hear from the honourable members? Far beyond relying on goodwill and structure, we have to give you clear direction, Mr. Chair, for a structure that will be fair. Could we please hear from the Liberal members?

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

Mr. Godfrey.

[John Godfrey, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

Perhaps I misunderstood what Mr. Jean was proposing the first time around. Would you mind repeating exactly how that would work?

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

Exactly. First, it has worked in the transport committee, and it's been very fair to all members. What would happen is that it would be subsequent.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

I have a point of order.

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

Mr. Cullen.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

We already defeated the subamendment. We keep returning to it.

We've clearly heard the points from everybody. I'm going to make the suggestion that we vote on what's been suggested by Mr. Bigras, and if that doesn't pass, we return to the original standing.

I'm surprised. Chair, your instinct was absolutely correct that this was going to be contentious, and it's taken us half an hour. To return to motions that were defeated seems deleterious, at best.

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

We should be talking about the amendment, which is Monsieur Bigras', okay?

The aim of this whole process should be based on fairness, and I don't say that in contradiction to either side. I'm just saying it should be based on fairness.

I will simply make an observation that in the two committees on which I sit, this is the model that's followed. That's just an observation. But my desire is that we come to what's perceived to be fair by all sides, if at all possible

Mr. Wilson.

[Blair Wilson, Liberal, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

Mr. Chairman, I have a point of order.

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

I'm sorry; you're correct. You were cut off by the point of order.

Mr. Jean, and then Mr. Wilson.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

Indeed, Mr. Chair, I would move another subamendment, if necessary. I'd be happy to move another one if he wants to discuss that. But in the interest of moving along and doing what's proper and fair, I think there is some misunderstanding, because I can't see why my proposal would be not acceptable.

What it would be, Mr. Godfrey, is at the very end: “be allocated to each subsequent questioner, alternating between the parties”. It's not that it would be all Liberal or all Conservative. It would be Liberal, Bloc, NDP, Conservative, until each person had had an opportunity to ask five minutes in questions—each person. Indeed, no person would get double time until everybody had had one opportunity.

[An hon. member]

That's fair.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

Mr. Chair, because of the confusion, if I may, I would move the subamendment to the amendment, that it would be changed to, and I quote, from the last lines, “be allocated to each subsequent questioner, alternating between parties”.

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

That subamendment has already been defeated.

[Blair Wilson, Liberal, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Mr. Chair, I would move the subamendment, similar to Mr. Jean has said there, but with the addition at the end saying that, “provided that a different speaker from each party has the opportunity”, because what we found in previous committees is that the parliamentary secretary ended up asking four questions in a row. The key to fairness, I think, is that we each get a chance to speak. And if we could move a subamendment that allows each individual--

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

It would be a new subamendment, because that one has been defeated.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

And indeed, Mr. Wilson, if I can say this, that's why I actually asked the chair ahead of the meeting, after seeing this, what did you mean by “subsequent”? What was his interpretation of “subsequent”? He said exactly that, that each person would receive a chance before another person received double the chance.

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

Perfect. Would it be acceptable, Monsieur Bigras, because the Bloc amendment is quite different from this, if we moved to vote on the amendment that was defeated, and then moved to Mr. Wilson's proposal as an amendment?

So this is the vote on the amendment. Just to be clear, do we want a recorded vote?

Can you read the amendment again? Because it's been awhile.

[The Clerk]

The amended motion would read as follows:

That witnesses be given ten (10) minutes to make their opening statement; that, at the discretion of the Chair, during the questioning of witnesses, there be allocated seven (7) minutes to the first questioner of each party, starting with the opposition parties, and that thereafter, five (5) minutes be allocated to each subsequent questioner, in keeping with the exact same order.

(Amendment negatived)

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

We are back on the main motion, which is amendable.

Mr. Wilson.

[Blair Wilson, Liberal, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

So I would move that. The part at the end is that thereafter five minutes be allocated to each subsequent questioner, following this exact same format, from one party to the other party, provided that each individual member has had an opportunity to question.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

My subamendment would read as follows: “be allocated to each subsequent questioner, alternating between the parties until each member has had an opportunity to question the witness.”

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

Thank you.

Mr. Cullen, on the amendment.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

It's interesting. That is almost the exact wording of the amendment we just defeated.

In terms of format then, in the second round of questioning, if I've already asked one in the first round, does that mean I don't get permission to ask one in the second round, until every single person on the committee has asked a question?

It's just to be clear here. I was actually comfortable with this original amendment. The original motion was based on what existed in the Standing Orders, which works for every committee around here, and even though I know half the time, if not more, I lose my second round of questioning because we run out of time, I was prepared to accept that. If what you're now suggesting is a deviation from everything else that other committees use and that I won't get my second round of questioning.... Just pay attention to the dynamic that people are trying to establish here for some inability of individual parties not to share their questions amongst themselves. We know some members are good at it and some members aren't. But that should not be at the behest of other parties on the committee to account for. If you can't share your time, maybe one should wonder how much time you're taking in your preamble to ask your question.

So all I'm suggesting is that if you take this route to this potential that all 13 members get to ask a question before it comes back around again, so be it.