Information & Ethics Committee on June 16th, 2011

[The Chair, NDP, Nathan Cullen]

Okay. Chad is just describing this on the board for us.

While he's doing that, we'll hear from Mr. Angus.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

I have a couple of concerns with that, thinking back to the previous Parliament. I know that we don't have the Bloc here and the Liberals have changed to where the NDP was, but in the previous Parliament, when I was the one person, in each hour the New Democrats had one guaranteed spot, a seven-minute spot and a five-minute spot. I'm looking at this proposal and it looks like the Liberals get erased.

I'm looking at the government operations committee, which is a very similar committee, and I think government ops has a New Democrat chair. On government ops, it's like this: New Democrat, Conservative, New Democrat, Conservative, Liberal, and Conservative. Then it's New Democrat, Conservative, New Democrat, Conservative, Liberal, and Conservative. So in that first group of seven minutes, the Liberals get their spot, and then they have one at the end. We, as the opposition, lead off for the first round of questioning.

[The Chair, NDP, Nathan Cullen]

Mr. Hiebert.

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

I like the point that my colleague Mr. Del Maestro made: everybody at the committee should have a chance to speak before we go to subsequent rounds for anybody else. It's an element of equality or fairness so that nobody gets left out.

[The Chair, NDP, Nathan Cullen]

You're speaking in favour of the first proposal as it is written here?

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

Yes.

[The Chair, NDP, Nathan Cullen]

Okay.

Mr. Angus.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Well, I don't think that's fair at all. I haven't sat here for seven years to fall for something like that. The fact is that the Conservatives have the majority on this committee. They can vote down what they want to vote down. To say that every single person is going to get to speak before we go back to it by party I think is going to distort this committee dramatically.

Again I'll go back to government operations, where you have a balance. There are going to be enough members speaking, but there is going to be some parity: it's New Democrat, Conservative, New Democrat, Conservative, Liberal, and Conservative, and then New Democrat, Conservative, New Democrat, Conservative, Liberal, and Conservative.

I'd be surprised if every member on the government side did speak. On certain issues, you're going to have your lead, and they're going to be focused, so I think we need to maintain.... Remember that this is also by party, not by individual members.

[The Chair, NDP, Nathan Cullen]

Mrs. Davidson.

[Patricia Davidson, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Yes. I'm wondering if Chad could put up Charlie's rotation. I'm having difficulty following it.

[The Chair, NDP, Nathan Cullen]

What do you mean? It's just Liberal, Liberal, Conservative, then....

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

That's what they're doing at government operations.

[The Chair, NDP, Nathan Cullen]

Just give us one second. We'll put this up on the board so everyone can see the options that are being proposed.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

There are two identical rounds, one for seven minutes and one for five.

[The Chair, NDP, Nathan Cullen]

Okay. For those who can't read the board, I'll note that the two rounds are identical: first round, New Democrat, Conservative, New Democrat, Conservative, Liberal, and Conservative. The second round is essentially the same: New Democrat, Conservative, New Democrat, Conservative, Liberal, and Conservative.

Mr. Dreeshen.

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer, AB]

Actually, now that we've put in the seven minutes and the five minutes, I think that's part of what we had been discussing previously. But I really see us as having each one of the parties, and the government party, with seven minutes in that first round, so I think we're giving an ample amount of time for the parties to get their main points and positions out in that first round.

When you're looking at six seven-minute questions for the first round, as Mr. Angus has, and as we have down on the board, I think that's a bit of overkill. I really think we're looking at that first round being a party-focused round, and after that we're starting to look at comments coming out of discussions that have taken place with the witnesses. So still, I think I prefer the first combination.

[The Chair, NDP, Nathan Cullen]

We essentially have two proposals in front of us.

Mr. Casey.

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

As I am new to committees, I don't have the opportunity to rely on any precedent, but I'm getting whispers in my ear that there is some precedent for a party in our situation to get a shot in each round. Certainly the second proposal would be preferable to me, that we would get a turn in the seven-minute round and the five-minute round. I would favour the second proposal.

[Patricia Davidson, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Charlie, in the committee that you patterned this on, were both rounds five minutes, or was one seven minutes and one five minutes?

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

It is government operations. Sorry, someone was just telling me the first round is actually the four at seven minutes?

[The Chair, NDP, Nathan Cullen]

I'm trying to understand what you're saying. Is it the first four speakers for seven minutes, and then after that it is less?

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

That's based on the government operations committee. If we accepted the first seven-minute round of the Conservatives, it would be Conservative, New Democrat, Conservative, Liberal at seven minutes each. That would allow more time for people to speak. I would take your first position.

I think in the second round at five minutes we have to ensure there is a chance for the Liberals. My Liberal colleague is new here. I don't think it's fair to push the Liberals off for their second round, because there is follow-up. I would support the Conservative first if we went with the New Democrat option for number two.

[The Chair, NDP, Nathan Cullen]

Chad has made a helpful suggestion. Charlie is suggesting a hybrid by taking Dean's proposal and slipping a Liberal position into the second round at some point. That would accomplish what you're saying, Charlie.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Yes, but we would have balance in the second round. It would be Conservative, New Democrat, Conservative, Liberal. The second round at five minutes would be New Democrat, Conservative, New Democrat, Conservative, Liberal, Conservative.