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

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

In the wording, it is “at the discretion of the chair”. In other committees that I've sat on, such as citizenship and immigration, we passed similar motions like this to change the order of speaking. It went around from Conservative to Liberal to NDP to Bloc and then came around again. We found it worked very well. There is precedent for it. The chair had some discretion, so that if there were additional questions that the government side had to have, then we sometimes deviated slightly from that order at the discretion of the chair in order to enable every member in the committee to ask their question in the period of time we had.

I would support it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

Mr. Jean.

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

I think this is a little different, first of all, from most committees. The transport committee that we've been operating on has been very effective this last session in getting two bills through. We did it on a very similar amendment, but not what has been proposed by Mr. Bigras. In fact, the last environment committee of the session before was very ineffective because I found that the voice of northern Alberta, notwithstanding Ms. Redman, was not heard and I was not able to question witnesses.

This is not about my presenting evidence. This is about my questioning witnesses as to what I know from my particular area, just as you know things from your particular area that I have no idea of, just as Mr. Godfrey does for his area that I have no idea of, and the witnesses can provide evidence. This is a government bill that we are proposing, and we should have the ability to respond to your questions to the witnesses so that we have the opportunity....

This is a democracy, the last I checked. I'd sure like to think so. I am here to represent my constituents, and hopefully, Ms. Redman, you are as well. I think we're here to represent all Canadians.

There is a unique perspective from each area of our country, because it is so large. Everyone should have an opportunity to question witnesses before anyone has an opportunity to speak twice and question the witnesses. We're all trying to contribute to the piece of legislation that is going to benefit Canadians, and all of us should have that opportunity to question witnesses before another person has a double opportunity to represent their constituents twice. It's not fair. It's simply not a fair system and we need to have a fair system here.

Canadians are watching us and Canadians want to see this Parliament work. I think we all know that, and that's why the subcommittee is not going to work. We all need to have an opportunity to put forward questions to the witnesses so that we can show our perspectives, and I think the government needs to respond.

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

I think we all appreciate that this is a democracy.

Mr. Cullen.

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

I think we're just about ready to put the question. I suggest most arguments have been heard.

I heard Conservative members argue the same position as the Liberals are arguing now when the benches were switched, and vice versa. Sometimes the conflict and controversy happens within the parties themselves as opposed to the system of the committee. I know there are going to be many members who want to add further comments to this, but I think that our positions are well defined now, and in the spirit of time, we should look to put the question as soon as possible.

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

We're dealing with one amendment first.

Mr. Watson.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The motion before us is a standard motion for how we question and divide time. It's on page 848 of Marleau and Montpetit.

Let's just take an example of three rounds of questioning. That means that the opposition gets 51 minutes to question witnesses and the government gets 37 minutes. The motion as amended means that the opposition in three rounds gets 51 minutes to question and the government gets 17 minutes. I don't know about you, Mr. Chair, but opposition has 54% of the composition of this committee in terms of membership. I think something much more proportional should be in order. I think that's why the standard motion is such. It apportions the time in a way that is reasonably proportional in order to question witnesses.

What they're asking, of course, is that for a government piece of legislation we only get 17 minutes to question witnesses—on our own bill even. I hardly think that's fair. I don't support the amended motion.

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

Mr. Warawa.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to clarify what's being proposed. The norm is that in the round of questioning, it would be a member of the Liberal Party, then a member of the Bloc, then a member of the NDP Party, and then a member of the government party, the Conservative Party. That's the first round. After that, in the second round, it would be a member of the Liberal Party, a member of the Conservative Party, a member of the Bloc, then a Conservative, and then the NDP, and a member of the Conservative Party.

The result in that is that at the end of those rounds, every member of the committee has had an opportunity to ask a question and nobody is getting multiple opportunities. That's the fair, traditional way the witnesses are being questioned.

In what is being proposed now, the first round is typical, but for the next and subsequent rounds, the first round is repeated, and repeated, and repeated, and repeated, so that the proportion of opportunity for questions is skewed.

The point I'm trying to make is that we would have the Bloc having twice as many opportunities to question as it has members on the committee, and the NDP would have four times the opportunity to question the witnesses as it has in representation on the committee. You end up with people not being given opportunity to question, and some people having, in Mr. Cullen's case, four times the opportunity to question. That's not fair, and it's not traditionally done.

So that's why I think there's opposition to this motion. We need to stick with the tradition of fairness.

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

Mr. Jean.

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

I think there's some misunderstanding here. I'm wondering if I could propose a subamendment to Mr. Bigras' amendment, or indeed if we can have an open discussion anyway, Mr. Bigras, about what option might be possible.

There is some confusion, and what I'm suggesting is that the members opposite consider this, at the last line: “be allocated to each subsequent questioner, alternating between the parties.” “Subsequent” means that each person would have an opportunity to ask one set of questions. It would not alternate between government and opposition; it would alternate between the parties. So it would be the Liberals, then the Bloc, then the NDP, then the Conservatives; then the Liberals, then the Bloc, then the Conservatives; then the Liberals, then the Conservatives; then the Liberals, then the Conservatives; and then it would go back to whoever the chair recognized or in fact some other semblance of questions. It would give everyone an opportunity to have one set of questions to the witnesses, which would be fair and give everyone an opportunity, but it would not be double time or anything else.

I would even propose that if there were enough time at the end, Mr. Cullen, it would then start with the Bloc, the NDP, and then the Liberals, and then back to the Conservatives. So if there are 15 minutes at the end, that would be dedicated to the parties that have the fewest members here but have the most persuasion of them.

I'm wondering whether you'd consider that. This is how the transport committee has been working. It has been very effective. Everyone has been happy because they've been able to ask a question, and it has left opportunity at the end. There have been 15 to 20 minutes at the end for opposition parties to put that forward.

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

Okay, just so we're clear, we're now debating a subamendment.

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

Is it my subamendment?

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

I believe you used the word “subamendment”, Mr. Jean.

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

I tried to make it a subamendment so we could discuss it at the same time. It would give the opportunity to everybody to do so before we—

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

We're going to march up the chain here again.

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

It wouldn't be alternating between opposition parties, but it would give everyone an opportunity.

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

Mr. Cullen.

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

Now we have a subamendment in front of us. I'd like to call the vote on the subamendment, and then call the vote on the amendment to follow.

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

I hear you. We do need to allow the debate to collapse on those.

Is there any more debate on the subamendment?

[An hon. member]

Can we hear it read back to us?

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

Mr. Clerk.

[The Clerk]

It would read: “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, alternating between parties.”

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

I would be open to a friendly amendment on the balance to allocate the time.

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

We've heard the subamendment. Let's vote on it.

(Subamendment negatived)