Environment Committee on June 21st, 2011

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

I had proposed just a switch in order so that it would lead off with a New Democrat. As far as I'm concerned, it's six of one, a half dozen of the other, but I'm just following procedure from the last Parliament, where the opposition led off the questioning. It's not a huge issue for me.

The second round would be, and I will use the first letters, N, C, N, C, N, C, L. This recognizes the truth of how we do things in committee, which is that it's rare for it to go member by member. It's more usual to go party by party, with certain members of the party asking the majority of the questions.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mark Warawa]

Mr. Woodworth.

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

If that's correct, then my interpretation--

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Then C at the end.

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

See, this is where I am left in some confusion, because what Ms. Leslie said a moment ago allows an opportunity for five Conservative members to speak but not six. And I am not in favour of that, because I don't see why I should have to give up my opportunity to speak in order to give a Liberal a second opportunity to speak. So if I'm reading that correctly, I just don't see how I can support this amendment.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mark Warawa]

Thank you.

The next speaker is Ms. Leslie, and then Ms. Rempel.

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Would you accept a C at the end, because that would be the correct number?

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Centre-North, AB]

I'd like to suggest the order of N, C, N, C, N, C, C, L.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mark Warawa]

I'm just going to clarify what we have as an understanding. What is being proposed in this amendment is NDP, Conservative, Liberal, Conservative, for the first round of seven minutes each.

In the second round what is being proposed in this amendment is NDP, Conservative, NDP, Conservative, NDP, Conservative, Conservative, Liberal. That's what's being proposed in this amendment.

So we're still speaking to the amendment.

[James Lunney, Conservative, Nanaimo—Alberni, BC]

Mr. Chair, could you repeat that again? Is this the second round? What about the first round?

[The Chair, Conservative, Mark Warawa]

The first round is NDP, Conservative, Liberal, Conservative.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Centre-North, AB]

Mr. Chair, could I suggest that you actually divide this into two motions, where we're voting on the first and then the second rounds, so that we can be clear?

[The Chair, Conservative, Mark Warawa]

We've started with one motion, which was a motion on speaking order from Ms. Rempel.

We have an amendment, and the amendment is to change the order for both the first and second rounds.

The original motion dealt with both rounds, so the amendment is also dealing with both rounds. So it's first and second, so we'll keep it together.

The amendment that is on the table is NDP, Conservative, Liberal, Conservative. That's the first round for seven minutes each.

The second round is NDP, Conservative, NDP, Conservative, NDP, Conservative, Conservative, Liberal.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Centre-North, AB]

Mr. Chair, could I propose a compromise--that we retain the first round of questioning in the order that is presented on the paper and then the second round of questioning the way you've presented?

[The Chair, Conservative, Mark Warawa]

We'll stay with the amendment. If you don't support the amendment, then we can have another amendment made, if the committee so wishes. Otherwise, I think this is going to get quite confusing.

So we'll stay with the amendment and either support it or not. Then if we don't, we can come up with another amendment if we so desire.

We have Mr. Woodworth speaking to the amendment.

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Thank you.

Now that we've made it clear, at least, that no Conservatives are going to lose their spot, I wish to first of all reiterate my earlier caution about adding time to the questioning.

And I also want to say something else. While I sympathize with my Liberal colleague, the fact of the matter is the composition of Parliament has changed. There are reduced numbers of Liberals in the House. And the questioning on committee should reflect the composition of the committee, which is in fact a reflection of the composition of the House.

This amendment in fact proposes to give the Liberal member double the rights of any other member on this committee by allowing a Liberal member an opportunity to have one seven-minute round and one five-minute round, whereas poor members such as myself will have only one round. That's not fair. The composition of the committee reflects the composition of the House. And the order of questioning should give everybody on the committee equal opportunity.

While I'm sympathetic to the Liberals' situation, in that they find themselves in with reduced numbers, I don't see why a Liberal should have two rounds of questioning when everybody else gets only one. So with great respect to any of my colleagues who disagree with me, I still think I'm going to oppose this amendment.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mark Warawa]

We now have Ms. Duncan.

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm a very ethical person, and I don't find that any of that discussion was respectful.

I'm going to come back to the 2000.... We are a party. It's not “the Liberal”, “the Liberal”. The last majority Parliament was 2000 to 2004, and I'll tell you how it was. The Liberals at that time were 53.8% of the House. The Conservatives were 15.4%. And then I can go through the parties. Despite that fact, everyone was given equal opportunity--20% of the speaking allotment, 12 minutes. So the first round was seven minutes for each party, and the second round was five minutes for each party, in the same order. What they had hoped to do was garner the questions of all people and of all parties to get good perspective, because we want the best for the environment.

I would support this motion and I would ask that we try to get as many perspectives as possible on something so important as the environment.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mark Warawa]

Ms. Leslie, and then Mr. Woodworth.

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'll keep it brief.

Obviously I don't have a lot invested in changing the speaking order, except I do think it's fair. The Conservatives are going to win every vote. They're going to win every vote. They're going to win every motion. They're going to win everything we put forward. So in just a little bit of fairness to the opposition parties, I think it's fair to let them ask another round of questions.

Thanks.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mark Warawa]

Thank you.

Mr. Woodworth.

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

First of all, I don't quite know how anyone could take offence to my earlier remarks. But that being said, I sometimes say things in ways I'm not conscious of, so if anyone took offence to or found anything disrespectful in what I said earlier, I didn't intend it so and I apologize. I wasn't even conscious of it.

That being said, however, I think that by allowing each member an opportunity to speak and to question once we are hearing a variety of perspectives. And there is no need to allow any member a second round, unless we all get a second round.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mark Warawa]

Mr. Lunney.

[James Lunney, Conservative, Nanaimo—Alberni, BC]

Just for the record, in the 37th Parliament the Liberal majority had 173 members. The Canadian Alliance was the official opposition with 66. And the PCs had 12. So together that was 78, which is certainly more than 15% of the House. I think there's room to come to some accommodation here. But let's just be accurate for the record.

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Fair enough.