Evidence of meeting #2 for Health in the 40th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was ndp.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Judy Wasylycia-Leis NDP Winnipeg North, MB
I think the idea would be what a couple of committees have done, which is to continue the four parties into the second round for five minutes. That would be my preference.
NDP
Judy Wasylycia-Leis NDP Winnipeg North, MB
Liberal, Bloc, NDP, Conservative; Liberal, Bloc, NDP, Conservative. That's been done in a number of committees. And then change it in your third round. I don't know how my colleagues in the Bloc and the Liberals feel, but if that's not acceptable, I think there are some other variations that at least get the NDP in the second round with five minutes, within five or six spots.
Liberal
Carolyn Bennett Liberal St. Paul's, ON
I think the amendment is totally unacceptable. In a minority government, to think you move into a tennis match, opposition, government, opposition, government is really, frankly, outrageous.
Depending on the witnesses, quite often only two Liberals get to ask a question at lots of the hearings we've had, and we figure it out and we decide among ourselves. So it's not that everybody gets to ask a question in any one session, but over the period, usually during the week or whatever, everybody gets to do something. I agree with Judy that it's not about individuals, it's about the party representation. I felt very uncomfortable a number of times last year that Judy quite often only had one question the whole time, which just didn't seem quite right.
I think a compromise was wrestled to the ground this morning at official languages. I think there's a way of doing this that makes sense. I'd like to hear what Judy thinks would be fair.
Conservative
Colin Carrie Conservative Oshawa, ON
Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
The way this works out, it does give each member the opportunity to ask their questions. To do what the honourable member from the NDP is suggesting would mean the Conservatives in the second round would only get one-quarter of the questioning, when the Conservative are almost 50% of the House. I ask the honourable member, Dr. Bennett, to remember when she was in a majority government; there was an equal representation, percentage-wise, with the Liberal representation, if you understand what I was saying.
To go to a second round with Liberal, Bloc, NDP, Conservative would mean many Conservative members would not get an opportunity to ask a reasonable number of questions at every meeting.
So my solution would be to keep it this way, but in the third round give the NDP absolutely the first. Then if you're looking at the total number of questions, which I believe we can count here, it would still be, percentage-wise, equal to the representation in the House.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joy Smith
So what we're looking at right now is this. The first suggestion has been that we just keep on from Ms. Wasylycia-Leis, we just keep on as we do with the first round: Liberal, Bloc, NDP, Conservative. The second suggestion from Mr. Carrie is that because of the numbers in the House, we should have it outlined Liberal, Conservative, Bloc, Conservative, Liberal, Conservative, Conservative. Then in the third round have the NDP start, so NDP, Liberal or NDP, Bloc?
How did you see the third round, Mr. Carrie?
Conservative
Colin Carrie Conservative Oshawa, ON
For questioning during the third round, we could do NDP, Liberal, Conservative, Bloc, Conservative, Liberal, Conservative, because I honestly think we're not going to get an extended third round. If you look at the timelines, we're not going to get a lot of time in a third round, so that would mean ending up with the NDP first, then Liberal, Conservative, Bloc. The third round would get preference, with, of course, the NDP going first.
Liberal
Joyce Murray Liberal Vancouver Quadra, BC
Just to point out that after the first round, in which each party has an opportunity to question, in the second round this appears to me to be four Conservative questions out of seven, which certainly seems excessive.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joy Smith
Who's next on the list?
Ms. Wasylycia-Leis, and then we'll go to Mr. Carrie.
NDP
Judy Wasylycia-Leis NDP Winnipeg North, MB
The way we've dealt with committees and rotations over the years is quite different from the way we handle question period in the House. You can't draw a parallel. I have now served off and on in the health committee for 12 years, and I can say that when the Liberals were in government there was a fair rotation. We were under pressure last time by the Conservatives to displace the NDP altogether and we managed to hold on to a semblance of a reasonable position, in the way it's now listed. I think it would be absolutely horrific and wrong for you to arbitrarily block out in effect two parties, but particularly the NDP, in a Parliament that is made up of four parties and at a time when we have a minority Parliament and when all parties are trying to work together and cooperate.
This, again I repeat, is not about individual members. It is up to you and your side of this table to figure out how to rotate your members. This isn't about giving everybody the same, equal amount of time. It's about advancing issues and pursuing them from the point of view of why we got elected, what ideological perspective we bring, and what background we have. To suddenly throw that out the window would be contrary to everything we know about parliamentary democracy and responsible government.
Conservative
Patricia Davidson Conservative Sarnia—Lambton, ON
Dr. Bennett referred to a solution that was arrived at in—the official languages committee, was it?
Do you know what it was?
Liberal
Carolyn Bennett Liberal St. Paul's, ON
There was a compromise at the end. It wasn't exactly what they had done before, because this Parliament is different in terms of seats, but I think there was a compromise that.... It got changed just at the last minute, I think.
In the official languages committee they have the first round of seven minutes, with official opposition, Bloc, NDP, government; the second round of five minutes, with the official opposition, Bloc, and then the government comes next, and then the Bloc—
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joy Smith
Can you read that out again, Dr. Bennett? I'm trying to write this down.
Liberal
Carolyn Bennett Liberal St. Paul's, ON
It's the official opposition, government, Bloc Québécois, NDP. Then in the third round it goes official opposition, Bloc, government, NDP. They switch it, so that if you end up with your meeting shortened, the government has gotten something. A fourth round goes to official opposition, and then government, Bloc Québécois, NDP.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joy Smith
I just want to be mindful of the fact that last year we got through two rounds barely. I can't remember, but I think once or twice we went to a third round—but it was rare.
One suggestion we're looking at now is that we go in the order of Liberal, Bloc, NDP, Conservative, and do that consistently through all rounds. That came from Ms. Wasylycia-Leis.
From Dr. Bennett....
I'm sorry. Mr. Carrie, my apologies; you were on the list.
Conservative
Colin Carrie Conservative Oshawa, ON
If you could give me a moment here, I'm trying to come up with a good solution.
Conservative