Evidence of meeting #1 for Citizenship and Immigration in the 41st Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was minutes.
A recording is available from Parliament.
12:15 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
You're on after Mr. Lamoureux. You promised me that you'd be very short.
12:15 p.m.
NDP
Don Davies NDP Vancouver Kingsway, BC
Did I?
When I look at this, of course the answer, as Mr. Dykstra says, is to make sure that each party has the percentage of time that is proportional to their seats in the House of Commons. That's how we did it in the last Parliament. Whether it was minority or majority, that's what we did.
If you take the first two rounds.... I understand that last time this committee used a lot of one-hour meetings. They would split the two hours into two one-hour meetings, which I understand is an efficient and economic way to go, and it is probably something we'll do fairly regularly. If you take just that one scenario, we will get through the first two rounds of questioning.
The way the motion is drafted, if we have two witnesses, they get 10 minutes each. That means 20 minutes will be done, and that leaves 40 minutes for questioning. Of that 40 minutes, if the Liberal Party gets five minutes, then that gives them 12.5%. Their percentage in the House of Commons is 11%. If they were to get seven minutes in the first round, as Mr. Lamoureux suggests, they would get 17.5% of the time, which is vastly disproportionate to their seats in the House of Commons.
The other scenario in the motion is that if we were to have three witnesses the proposal is to have eight minutes apiece. That means there would be 24 minutes of evidence and 36 minutes left for questioning. Under the 36 minutes, if Mr. Lamoureux and the Liberals get five minutes, that's 13% of the time, which is still above their proportion in the House of Commons. Were they to get seven minutes in the first round, as Mr. Lamoureux suggests, that would give them 19% of the time.
In my opinion, the questioning order is appropriate. It's fair, and it's actually overly generous to the Liberal Party in terms of the amount of time that's allotted to them. Were you to put the Liberal Party in the first round and give them seven minutes, it would be unfair to the other parties in this room.
12:15 p.m.
Conservative
12:15 p.m.
Liberal
Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB
Thank you, Mr. Chairperson.
I was elected in the byelection, as you might recall, Mr. Chairperson. But fortunately for me, I did have the privilege to sit on the aboriginal affairs committee, the health committee—probably four or five committees, this being one of those committees. And what I witnessed was that the Liberals started it off, followed by the Bloc, and then there might have been a Conservative, but then it went to the NDP. Now, the point is that as best as I can recall, on all of those committees it started off with the Liberals as the official opposition. The thing I want to emphasize is that the NDP got a chance every time in the first round.
If the Conservatives want to ensure that every member of the committee gets the opportunity to speak, we can extend the length of the committee time. We can ensure that happens.
We just have to take a look in terms of the institution and what's best for the institution. That's the reason I believe the Liberal Party should be able to be in that first go-round. And then if we want to ensure that everyone else gets the opportunity to speak, I don't object to that. Sure, if it means we have to sit a little extra time in order to accommodate that. But from what I could tell in the short period of time I was here, that was in fact the case.
I can tell you from my provincial experience that was always the case. In fact, in committees—and I sat on every committee at the Manitoba legislature—the opposition party spoke at least five to one in terms of time allocation. I don't know what happens in England or some of the other parliamentary jurisdictions, but I just find this is very peculiar. Maybe we can sit down and discuss it, but this is definitely something I couldn't agree to. I would be abandoning every principle I have on parliamentary tradition.
12:20 p.m.
Conservative
12:20 p.m.
Conservative
John Weston Conservative West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I did not find the first part to be very clear. It is not the second part to which you are currently referring but rather the beginning which states that witnesses for organizations are entitled to 10 minutes. In short, each witness has 10 minutes.
It could be more clearly stated: that where there are one or two witnesses from any organization, each such witness shall be allowed 10 minutes.
And then you've pointed out that if there were more than three witnesses, we should deal with that.
12:20 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
I have no problem with that wording. My suggestion is that it's possible to have four or more witnesses, although quite frankly I will rant and rave, because we never accomplish anything when that happens.
And we could conceivably go for two hours. Do you know what I mean? In other words, the same witnesses could be there for two hours; that's possible. It's very rare, but it could happen. The rules don't provide for that, but I'm going to suggest that we deal with that when the time comes and that the committee give the chairman a certain amount of discretion to try to be fair as to how that's going to proceed. That's why I interjected at that point.
Mr. Weston.
12:20 p.m.
Conservative
12:20 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
Thank you.
It's going to take me a while.... You're going to have to be patient with me when I'm pronouncing your names. I'm going to try.
You have the floor, Madame Groguhé.
12:20 p.m.
NDP
Sadia Groguhé NDP Saint-Lambert, QC
Congratulations, Mr. Chair. I am a new MP. So I am just discovering how committee meetings work.
Clearly, the committee will determine its rules of operation. That is good. In light of what Mr. Lamoureux has proposed, I would like to know what the previous practice was. Is what Mr. Lamoureux proposing compatible with the way things currently work?
12:20 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
You are asking me the question. I don't like when people ask me questions, but I'm going to try to deal with that.
I can only repeat what I have already said, which is that each committee is the master of its own house. I've never seen a committee with the same procedure as another committee. It's always different. Some are better and some are worse, but they are always different.
Are you finished?
12:20 p.m.
NDP
Sadia Groguhé NDP Saint-Lambert, QC
If I am not supposed to put the question to you, whom should I ask?
12:20 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
I don't know.
My dilemma is that I don't like to get involved in the debate. That's the job of committee members. If you have asked for a comment, I have given it to you. I'm trying not to take one side or the other.
June 23rd, 2011 / 12:25 p.m.
Conservative
Costas Menegakis Conservative Richmond Hill, ON
You should just call me Costas. It's a lot easier, Mr. Chair.
I've been listening very carefully to everyone's points here. With all due respect to Mr. Lamoureux, I really don't see this as an ideological rift or as discussion to cut or limit the amount of time the Liberal Party can speak.
A proposal has been put forth that appears to have the support of both the majority party and the opposition. It's very fair. It gives an opportunity for every member to speak, and then we start over again. It's also representative of the percentages of the parties as they are represented in the House. I reject, with all due respect to my good friend across the way, any implication that there was a concerted effort or something to limit or to cut out the institution known as the Liberal Party. I see it as an opportunity for everybody to have a chance to speak.
I'm sure we're going to be hearing many depositions from across the country. This is a very big issue in my riding. I represent one of the most diverse ridings, and I know Rathika does the same across the way here. It's very important that we all have an opportunity to ask questions and to gather the facts, perhaps more so than in any other committee.
I'm in support of what has been proposed. I am encouraged to see that the official opposition sees it that way, and I would hope that you can see that the spirit in which this was intended is quite different from trying to eliminate or reduce or cut out the party that you represent, Mr. Lamoureux.
Thank you.
12:25 p.m.
NDP
Jinny Sims NDP Newton—North Delta, BC
I just want to say that I support what's on the floor and that it seems to reflect the membership in the House.
Thank you.
12:25 p.m.
Liberal
Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB
Mr. Chair, is it appropriate for me to ask a question of the analysts?
12:25 p.m.
Liberal
Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB
Can the analysts give any indication of an opposition party being excluded from asking questions in the first round? Can you cite an example of where that has taken place?
12:25 p.m.
Julie Béchard Committee Researcher
As an analyst from the Library of Parliament, I'm afraid that I'm not responsible for procedural matters. Questions must be asked of the clerk.
12:25 p.m.
Liberal
Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB
Okay.
Mr. Chair, I look to any of my Conservative colleagues on the committee. Could they give any indication from their historical background knowledge of Parliament and committees? Are they aware of any committee at which a third party has not been given a question on the first round? Can they cite a committee? I can't.
12:25 p.m.
Conservative