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

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

Mr. Jean.

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

I'm not sure if Mr. Wilson would be open to a friendly amendment from Mr. Cullen. But certainly Mr. Cullen could move that at the end of the questioning of all the members, it start off with the NDP and then go to the Bloc, if he feels he's being pressed for time. But it would be fair to each party, and I think it's a great amendment by Mr. Wilson.

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

Actually, I'd be willing to accept that friendly amendment.

But it gives every party the same proportion of time as they have seats at the table, does it not, except for the first round? If, for example, for the government, only three of the five people show up for questioning witnesses, they only get the three, and then it comes back around.

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

We'll go to Ms. Redman.

[Karen Redman, Liberal, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Further to Mr. Cullen's query, though, if we were going around in the normal rotation of parties, which is really what we're speaking about—I realize we're talking about party representation as well as individual members—and the NDP turn came back up, and clearly the NDP has one representative, are we now saying that the NDP would not get its turn? Or would Mr. Cullen then get to ask a second round of questions?

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

This formula, which has been working in the transport....

I did a spreadsheet. It came up to 105 minutes, with everyone having an opportunity to speak. Plus, the NDP and the Bloc would have one extra turn each. It's fair.

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

Ms. Redman's question was direct. If I've already spoken, then I have to wait until the rounds are all done.

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

But within 55 minutes you're going to have a second opportunity.

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

I don't know the strength and length of your transportation committee meetings, but experience has shown us here that even on the more direct route, which is the original motion here, most of the time I don't even get to the second round. And most of the time I don't complain at all about it. I just allow it to go.

Ms. Redman's question was direct. Her first proposition was the correct one. If it comes back to me, and it's the NDP's slot...

Let's keep in mind that this is not based on individual members; this entire system is based on parties. That's how you do question period. That's how you do questioning at committee. I don't know if people are just waking up to this right now, but we don't ask questions in the House based on how many votes each party got or on how many members are sitting there. Pay attention. This is by party.

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

Okay, we'll have two more.

Please, go ahead, through the chair, Mr. Bigras.

[Bernard Bigras, Bloc, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Chair, Nathan is taking the very words out of my mouth, because that is exactly what I wanted to say. I believe that some people will regret not having voted for our motion a few minutes ago. Time is not allotted individually to each member, but to each party. Of course, the committee can include that in the time allocation formula if it so wishes, but I believe that that is very dangerous. If I have to vote, I will vote for the lesser evil, but I continue to believe that our suggestion is the best one so far.

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

Mr. Wilson.

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

I just wanted to add to what Mr. Cullen said. He has the opportunity to ask a question, and then it goes around the process, just as I have an opportunity to ask a question and then I have to wait until it goes around the entire table before I'm able to present a question to a witness. We're in the exact same position.

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

Mr. Manning has not spoken, so I'm going to give him an opportunity. Then if possible, I would like to call the question.

[Fabian Manning, Conservative, Avalon, NL]

Just a moment, Mr. Chair. I think Mr. Wilson's motion is excellent for the simple reason that when you look at it from a party structure, if you go back to the House of Commons, it's almost based on the same thing. How many questions do you get in question period? It's based on the numbers in the House. If you bring it down to the table here, we're doing almost the same thing as we're doing in the House of Commons.

So I fully support Mr. Wilson's motion.

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

Are we ready for the question? Should we, for perfect clarity—

I'm sorry, we have two more. Go ahead, Ms. Redman.

[Karen Redman, Liberal, Kitchener Centre, ON]

I am not trying to be an obstructionist, and I realize that people are trying to do what's fair here.

We are not talking about party allocation. If Mr. Wilson asks the first question in the round, and he has another question for the second round, he would have to forgo that round, or I would have to ask that question because he's already had his turn. Right? If among the Liberals we decided in our second round that we wanted Mr. Godfrey to ask the second question, and he'd already asked a question, would we have to skip that turn?

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

I don't think that's the intent of—

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

I would give the chair some flexibility in that to see what the makeup is of the party, how the questions are going, how time is being split and being shared, and how much time we have allocated to the witnesses. I'm sure that for some witnesses we'll have an hour to speak to them, and for some we'll have two hours.

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

Through the chair, please.

Mr. Cullen, hopefully the last—

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

Yes, let's hope.

I just remind the Conservatives that the intention Mr. Wilson just raised was argued against in terms of the discretion and flexibility of the chair.

All I would point out is that while it might be true on the transportation committee, it's interesting to me that we're going to take the example of one committee and not the other nineteen in terms of the way they function, or what was used for Bill C-2 in the only other legislative committee that we've done already. It worked well with the rounds of questioning they had.

It's a curious choice for us today. If people want to design it this way, then they've certainly made an obvious statement to us.

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

Can I make one last point, Chair? If, after having gone through a number of witnesses, this system proves to be flawed, do we not have the opportunity, Mr. Chair, to reopen it, discuss it, and come up with alternatives that may be more acceptable to everybody?

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

Again, for clarity, could we read the amended motion?

[The Clerk]

Absolutely. I'll dispense with the top part. The amendment would be: “That five (5) minutes be allocated to each subsequent questioner, alternating between the parties until each member has had an opportunity to question the witnesses.”

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

I call the question, and we have a request for a recorded vote.

We have a point of order.