Information & Ethics Committee on Feb. 4th, 2009

[Russ Hiebert, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale, BC]

But the implication for the committee is different.

I think it's important for members, especially new members, to recognize that to adopt the motion as it was stated in the last Parliament does not have the same effect on this committee this time. The numbers have changed. Whereas last time there was an attempt to seek out fairness, what my colleague is trying to do here is the same principle--that is, equality of members. But to simply apply what was adopted last time would not allow that principle to take effect in this committee under this Parliament. To characterize it as such is not exactly accurate.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

I will be more specific, then. The amendment by Mr. Siksay is to delete everything after the word “that” and to replace it with the words that appear at the top of page 2 of the minutes of the last meeting: that during the first round of questioning of witnesses, seven minutes be allocated to each party in the following order: Liberal, Bloc, NDP, Conservative; and in subsequent rounds, five minutes be allocated to each party on each round in the following order: Liberal, Conservative, Bloc, Conservative, New Democratic Party, Liberal, Conservative.

That is the amendment proposed by Mr. Siksay, and it's in order.

Mr. Poilievre.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

Mr. Chair, were you just reading the rules from the last committee?

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Mr. Siksay proposed an amendment.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

I understand.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

He referred to us the words that he wants to use, which are the ones that we would find here. It's not necessarily to adopt this motion, but I want the words that happen to be there to be precise. So he would have read it out; I think he was trying to be very clear to the committee what his intent was. I think everyone is aware of his intent: to keep the same distribution, same pattern, that we had in the last Parliament. That is the effect of his amendment.

We have more debate? That's fine.

Mr. Hiebert.

[Russ Hiebert, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale, BC]

Mr. Chair, I would like to amend the amendment. It would be as you read it, but in the last portion of it, after the part about subsequent five-minute rounds, the order would instead be Liberal, Conservative, Bloc, Conservative, Liberal, Conservative, Conservative.

It's a different motion. The motion that the chair read actually allocated time--seven minutes for the first round and five minutes for the subsequent rounds--and I think that's a very good idea. In fact, that was the motion that I was going to move after this, if it had not come up.

So I would concur with that portion of the amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Your point is that the five minutes and seven minutes are not specifically mentioned in the motion that was initially moved by Mr. Poilievre and that you would like to have a second one. The time of speaking is at the discretion of the committee to be determined, and Mr. Siksay's amendment sought to bring into one motion all the issues related to the speaking time as well as order.

To amend that to bring up the order of speaking again, to exclude the NDP in the second and include an extra Conservative, in fact goes back to the main motion. So it's almost a little bit circular. The only difference here is the five and seven minutes, and no one has spoken to that, but the amendment was in order. The subamendment makes the argument go back. The subamendment is in order, though. Members, it may get a little complicated here, but we'll take this one step at a time.

We are going to deal with the subamendment. The subamendment basically is to change the very last listing of parties, in terms of the order on second round, to Liberal, Conservative, Bloc, Conservative, Liberal, Conservative, Conservative.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

That's not the amendment; that's the subamendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

That is the subamendment.

Does everyone understand the subamendment? It basically is to drop the NDP from all subsequent rounds, because Mr. Siksay's amendment refers to “subsequent rounds”. So the subamendment by Mr. Hiebert, as I understand it, would eliminate the NDP from any subsequent-round questioning and replace it with a Conservative. The order of those would be the same order that was articulated in the motion moved by Mr. Poilievre. Is that right?

I think we had better call the question on the subamendment by Mr. Hiebert. Is that acceptable to members, to put the question now?

All those in favour of the subamendment by Mr. Hiebert, raise your hands. All those opposed. It's a tie.

On the basis of status quo, I am going to keep the NDP in the mix of questioning after the first round. So that's defeated.

(Subamendment negatived)

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

I will now put the question on the amendment by Mr. Siksay, which, if I understand it correctly, is effectively the motion as adopted in the last Parliament.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

Mr. Chair, I would put forward an additional amendment, a subamendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Yes, please carry on.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

Thank you.

It is that this committee recognize the democratic will of the Canadian people in apportioning questioning time on an equal per-member basis by ensuring that each party gets one question per member in the first two rounds.

Can I speak to my amendment?

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

The subamendment is to delete all of the words of the amendment after the word “that” and replace it with “this committee”, etc.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

Yes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Please speak to your subamendment.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

My amendment would delete the words that Mr. Siksay added and replace them with the indisputably obvious principle that each member is equal. We could vote on another amendment, which someone could put forward, that the last election results are considered by this committee to be null and void, and that we as a committee will live under the assumption--however disproven--that the distribution of parliamentary seats continues to be what it was in the 39th Parliament. That is an additional subamendment someone could bring forward if they're not happy with my amendment.

If on the other hand we are prepared to respect the electorate and the mandates that they gave the various parties and their members, then we will support a motion that treats each member equally. Surely we don't want to get off to a start with this committee by engaging in a partisan effort to undermine the balance of power that voters selected. Surely we as a committee don't want to signal to the Canadian people that their voices were not heard. And most importantly, as parliamentarians who respect the privilege of members, we certainly do not want to assign greater weight to individual members of certain parties than we do to members of others.

I believe this vote will convey to any observers who are watching this committee--and I know that there will be thousands who will read the transcripts--that we as a committee are prepared to accept the will of the Canadian people and act it out in the administration of our functions.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Seeing no further interventions, I would like to put the question on the subamendment by Mr. Poilievre. The effect of this, just to be clear, is that the motion would be amended so that it would read:

That this committee recognize the democratic will of the Canadian people on an equal per-member basis by ensuring that each party gets one question per member in the first two rounds.

That is the effect of the subamendment by Mr. Poilievre.

Do you have a question on this, Mr. Wrzesnewskyj?

[Borys Wrzesnewskyj, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

In fact I was hoping to make a friendly amendment based on the same principle.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Unfortunately, we already have a subamendment; we can't go there.

(Subamendment negatived)

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Mr. Wrzesnewskyj, please.

[Borys Wrzesnewskyj, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

I think this is an important issue. As Mr. Poilievre noted--although I think he was optimistic in his exuberance to suggest that thousands of people would be perusing the transcripts of this particular meeting--there are certain democratic principles at stake. So I would like to propose a subamendment that would be tacked on that would say:

Recognizing that no democratic system is perfect, and notwithstanding that the Conservative Party of Canada received only 38% of the popular vote in the last election, and notwithstanding the Prime Minister's unwillingness to respect those areas of Canada that are unrepresented with additional seats, we maintain the status quo time allotment for questions, which provides the Conservative Party of Canada with a disproportionate voice on this committee.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

I saw the amendment; I didn't see the friendly part, though.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

In legislation, prose is not operative and generally not permitted. Even the courts don't acknowledge the value of any preambles. I think the committee appreciates the sentiment you've expressed, but I don't believe it adds to the functionality of the motion before us about the order of speaking and the seven and five minutes. On that basis, I'm going to rule that subamendment out of order.

I'm now going to recognize Mr. Hiebert.