Government Operations Committee on Feb. 3rd, 2009

[The Chair, Liberal, Derek Lee]

Maybe this makes Mr. Martin feel a little bit more comfortable. It's not quite two days.

Having clarified that—thank you, Mr. Clerk—I'm going to invite Mr. Martin to amend this if he wishes, because he hasn't actually formally amended it. Otherwise I'll put the motion with the 48-hour reference in it.

Mr. Martin, do you want to move it?

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

No, Mr. Chair. I don't sense there's interest in changing it, so I'll let it slide.

[The Chair, Liberal, Derek Lee]

Thank you. So I'll put the motion that contains the 48-hour notice provision.

(Motion agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

[The Chair, Liberal, Derek Lee]

The next motion is in regard to time allocation. This is always an interesting biscuit to chew on. If you've had a chance to read it, this committee had a fairly extensive motion adopted on time allocation.

Could I have somebody move it?

Mr. McTeague has moved the motion as printed.

Mr. Martin, in discussion and debate.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Under the first column, whoever produced this document points out that this section varies from one committee to another. It actually varies wildly, with very little rhyme or reason, or logic even, sometimes. I can only argue that in many of the committees I've sat on, five or six committees, the NDP fares better than is contemplated in this outline. I would ask that this committee recognize that in the current Parliament the NDP came back with a greater number of seats. All I would ask is that it go to the makeup of previous committees I've been sitting on, even in the last Parliament, which would be, in the first round, Liberal, Bloc, NDP, government.

I have further recommendations on the second round, but I'm just serving notice, to get the debate going, that we aren't satisfied with the proposal put forward here, and I would argue for marginally and subtly better representation for the NDP in the questioning rounds.

[The Chair, Liberal, Derek Lee]

I'm going to take advantage of the perceived lull in debate here.

You'll notice that at the beginning of this motion it contains the words “at the discretion of the Chair”. This particular chair would take that as a huge commission to edit or massage these rules, because as written this motion is very precise, and in my experience as a chair, it's perhaps a little too precise. I've sat on both sides, government and opposition, and I recall times being in government where the routine was such that you had government members pretty much going to waste while the opposition took time slots. Eventually there evolved this alternating piece so that instead of doing the round, opposition, opposition, opposition, government, and continuing that, there was opposition, opposition, government, opposition, and then alternating back and forth so that everybody on the committee had a reasonable opportunity to participate instead of having some members being left and abandoned until 12:59 or whenever the meeting ended. As a chair, I would try to prevent that from happening.

However, this matter is in your hands, so I'm going to see members here. Which one of you would like to go first?

Mr. Warkentin.

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Peace River, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I tend to agree. I think you have a good grasp of the issue.

I guess that comes to the crux of the matter. Clearly we're happy that we have more members, that we do have five members on this side, but what happens is that if we have a mechanism that we have around the table, oftentimes there's a situation where you have five members and there's a person who doesn't get to speak during that committee meeting. This committee can often be far less partisan, and the way it often becomes less partisan is when we actually bring issues that concern each of our ridings. I think it's important that we have representation from the different areas. It's not necessarily a party issue. I know in the last Parliament we discussed the issue of passport services, and every person on this side of the table had a very different perspective from one another, based on their own experience from their own community.

So I think it's important that we have a system--and I think you've outlined one--where every member gets some opportunity to bring their concerns forward and to represent their perspectives around this table. I think that might be one way we can reduce the partisan nature of this, by giving everybody an opportunity to question and to bring their different perspectives forward.

[The Chair, Liberal, Derek Lee]

As a chair as well, just before I go to other members, I would tend to want to avoid a situation where I was recognizing somebody for a second round, or even a third round, when there was a member who hadn't had a first round. I would not want to be bound, as chair, to see that happen.

Mr. Brown, and then Mr. McTeague.

[Patrick Brown, Conservative, Barrie, ON]

My point was just similar to Mr. Warkentin's. I believe the principle that everyone should have an opportunity to have at least one question. I think the format can constrict that. As long as we don't tie your hands to enable that, I don't think it would be in the best interest of the committee.

[The Chair, Liberal, Derek Lee]

We still have to get some wording here that works for us.

Mr. McTeague.

[Dan McTeague, Liberal, Pickering—Scarborough East, ON]

Mr. Chair, I'm pleased to see the direction you've taken here.

I would also like to point out, just so that all members here are aware, that circumstances like that—and it often happens that a witness appears only for half an hour or an hour—would not necessarily allow all members, or all parties, to ask questions.

We should specifically consider the fact that witnesses will be here for a very short time. With that in mind, the length of time indicated here seems just and fair to me.

[The Chair, Liberal, Derek Lee]

Madame Bourgeois, and then Mr. Martin.

[Diane Bourgeois, Bloc, Terrebonne—Blainville, QC]

I would just like to support what Mr. McTeague has just said. As an long-time, venerable member of this committee, I would like to tell you that we have never had problems about questions. Everyone has had the opportunity to ask questions. Even the chair was involved on occasion. We have all had the right to speak.

I think that we can trust our chair. It will be up to him to see that everyone can speak. I do not see why we would change things. But I understand your position. Even the Bloc stepped aside on occasion to give the New Democratic Party a chance to speak. It is all about using good practices in the committee.

[The Chair, Liberal, Derek Lee]

Go ahead, Mr. Martin.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

You know, I can understand there's goodwill in the air, lots of bonhomie and goodwill, but we do have to have some agreed-upon structure. I've always thought we should have strict rules and loose enforcement of the rules, just so that there are rules and structure to fall back on in case things fall apart in terms of the goodwill.

I would point out that in the first round what's contemplated, or past practice, favours the other parties disproportionately. Looking back to the origins of the whole committee structure, it's an opportunity for the opposition parties, I believe, to get down to the truth. Often the government knows the truth. They're the government; they have access to all the books, access to information. We're trying to beaver our way through the smokescreens to get to the bottom of substance from the witnesses. This is why most other committees have the opposition parties asking questions first and then the government.

So I would suggest that the first round should be the official opposition, the Bloc, the NDP, and then the government, and cap it off there.

I think the really weighted part is in the second round here, because listen to this, Mr. Chairman: it goes Liberal, Bloc, Conservative, Liberal, Conservative, Bloc, and then the NDP. Well, we're packing it home with our lunch kits by then, because the witnesses are gone.

I won't accept that, Mr. Chairman. I don't think that's fair. In the interest of fairness, I think we should repeat the same order in the second round--official opposition, Bloc, NDP, and government--and keep doing that as many rounds as we can get in, with all the flexibility and discretion of the chair that you began your remarks with.

I would be a lot happier if the official structure said official opposition, Bloc, NDP, government for the first round, and do it again for the second round--and the third, if there's time.

[The Chair, Liberal, Derek Lee]

Mr. Warkentin.

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Peace River, AB]

I don't want to belabour this issue, but I sat in the last Parliament, and I was pleased with the way we constructed things in the last Parliament. I understand Mr. Martin's concern with regard to getting the answers out of government, but my experience, having sat in this committee, is that more often than not the witnesses were not from government. They weren't ministers. We were looking for information about how we could prepare reports from often the private sector, oftentimes unions, oftentimes people with very specific desires and thoughts on what the government should employ. It was important that we had representations from every party.

I take Mr. Martin's point that in certain circumstances there are going to be times when we may know a little bit more information than he does. I respect that, and I'm not going to deny that. What I am going to suggest is that more often than not there are situations where we are all at the same position. We all have no clue as to who is coming forward in terms of the background information.

So I would suggest that giving every opportunity for each member of the committee to get up and to question is important. The way it worked in the last go-round--hopefully this is the most contentious debate we have in this committee--is that, as Diane mentioned, oftentimes we would give our questioning time to another party if in fact there was a member of another party who had a real desire to get some information from the witnesses.

I'm comfortable with the way it worked in the past, and I'm hopeful that we can continue to move in that direction. If we're going to go by seats, I guess we could have the Liberals giving up one of their spots to the New Democrats on this, but I don't sense that this is the case, so....

Well, when you look at the number of members around the table, that's what we'd have to do if in fact we were going to give another spot to the New Democrats. I guess you guys can work that out amongst yourselves, and possibly you could just be generous down the road and offer that speaking spot to Mr. Martin from time to time.

[The Chair, Liberal, Derek Lee]

Let's keep in mind that this committee is a committee of members and not a committee of political parties.

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Peace River, AB]

Hear, hear!

[The Chair, Liberal, Derek Lee]

Every member has to be respected, irrespective of what party. I appreciate Mr. Martin's desire to ensure that the rules do not box in the New Democratic Party to one and a half time slots, or however it works out--I'm exaggerating a little bit--and I'm sure most members at this non-partisan stage of the committee's work would agree that there's no need to box in a particular party, the government side or the opposition side.

There were other members who did want to speak.

Mr. Anders.

[Rob Anders, Conservative, Calgary West, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I support the existing time allocations. Previously I was chair of the veterans affairs committee, and I think that if Mr. Martin were to ask Mr. Stoffer—who was on that committee with me—he would say I was very generous toward his participation. There were some times when Mr. Stoffer was not able to attend the full committee meeting and only attended the first part. I was very generous with regard to the opposition who remained, and sometimes I would allocate positions depending upon who was there and who showed interest.

I think it's important, though, that when you set the time allocations, you don't start off in a partisan way trying to limit members—especially new committee members on the government side, for whom this is their first committee experience, who want to have a chance to participate and to ask questions and do something useful for their country and their constituents—or sideline them for partisan considerations.

[The Chair, Liberal, Derek Lee]

Mr. Martin.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Chair, very briefly, I can't let that go.

First of all, the allocation of questions is by party; it's not by individual. If this committee wants to do it differently, then we should name each individual: Martha Hall Findlay will speak first, and then Rob Anders will speak second. We don't do it that way; we do it by party.

If the Conservative Party wants to let some of their rookies get up first and ask questions, that is the choice they should make, just as we will with our time allocation. But it should be allocated fairly, in proportion to the seats you have in the House, as closely as possible. We have to have speaking times that, to the degree possible, accurately reflect the proportions in the House. The NDP under this configuration gets badly shortchanged. So in the interests of getting this committee off to a fair start and in the interests of non-partisan fairness, we deserve more time.

Rob, you're asking us to buy a bit of a pig in a poke, saying, well, the chair can be fair and distribute time fairly, you know. We want rules that reflect that, and that's what we're asking the committee to recognize.

[The Chair, Liberal, Derek Lee]

In the interests of trying to bring this to a close, I'll say that the current wording is relatively strict; it doesn't seem to allow much room for discretion at all. I personally don't like the current wording, but I'm in the chair and I'm not out where you are, so I am hopeful there will be some constructive suggestion.

One thing I could throw out for your consideration is to delete all of the wording after the description of the five-minute rounds. It would read “and that thereafter, five (5) minutes, including the response of the witness, be allocated”, and we would stop there and insert the following words “alternating between parties and among members” So the chair would have an eye to the parties and members as the rounds were distributed. So we'd have the first round followed by all of the second and third rounds, but with alternation.

That's more or less what I've been used to, either in practice or in written rules, in my committee service; but if members want to construct something more precise, you're at liberty to do it. The trick now is to get that proposed at this time.

Mr. McTeague, then Monsieur Roy.

[Dan McTeague, Liberal, Pickering—Scarborough East, ON]

There may have been wisdom provided by Mr. Warkentin in his comments reflecting on the number of times. Let it be very clear that we want this committee to work, as Liberals, as we do in other committees here.

Mr. Martin raises some very important points with respect to the amount of time that the New Democrats do not get to speak, and I would suggest, in an offer of goodwill, that we would be willing to allocate in the second round our second position, which would then read “Liberal Party, Bloc Québécois, Conservative Party, New Democratic Party”. The latter would be changed—instead of Liberal Party.

But I would also caution that where we go from there is that it would give the New Democratic Party a third one, after the Bloc Québécois. But I see the essence there, since my party, the Liberal Party, would be speaking twice in the first round. We'd certainly want to see some levelling there.