Citizenship and Immigration Committee on June 23rd, 2011

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Mr. Dykstra.

[Rick Dykstra, Conservative, St. Catharines, ON]

Reduced quorum is the third issue in terms of routine motions: that the chair be authorized to hold meetings to receive evidence and to have that evidence printed when a quorum is not present, provided that at least three members are present, including one member of the opposition and one member of the government.

(Motion agreed to)

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Mr. Dykstra.

[Rick Dykstra, Conservative, St. Catharines, ON]

Statements by witnesses and their questioning: That the witnesses from any one organization be allowed ten minutes to make their opening statement. When there are three witnesses, each witness shall be allowed eight minutes to make their opening statement. During the questioning of witnesses, there shall be allocated seven minutes for the first round of questioning, and thereafter five minutes shall be allocated to each questioner in the second and subsequent rounds of questioning.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

I see more wording.

[Rick Dykstra, Conservative, St. Catharines, ON]

Sorry. It's the sequence for the questioning. I apologize for that. Thank you, Chair.

That the order of questions for the first round of questioning be as follows: Conservative Party, New Democratic Party, Conservative Party. That the order of questions for the second round of questioning be as follows: New Democratic Party, Liberal Party, Conservative Party. That the order of questions for the third and subsequent rounds of questioning be as follows: Conservative Party, New Democratic Party, Conservative Party.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

We have speakers--Mr. Lamoureux and Mr. Davies.

Perhaps I could make a comment before the speakers begin. In the last session, I suggested that the most witnesses we have at one time would be three. This motion deals with that. I suppose there's the remote possibility that we could have four, in which case I suppose we'll deal with that when the time comes. It could happen. I was able to persuade the last committee that the most we would have at any one time would be three witnesses. That conceivably could change if we had a whole pile of people we wanted to see.

Mr. Lamoureux, you have the floor.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and congratulations. Even though I only had the one experience with you, I did find that it was enjoyable, I must say.

The first part I don't have any problem with, as I'm sure that the government would be a bit concerned in terms of why it is the Liberals wouldn't even appear on the first go-round.

I don't know what sort of background work has been done in terms of tradition. For example, when the Liberals were in government, my understanding was that the opposition would start off questions. At the Manitoba legislature, and I recognize that there's a big difference between the two legislatures....

One would think, given parliamentary principle, that the official opposition should always, always, always, without exception, have the first opportunity to ask questions. Again, based on my provincial experience--but I always thought it was universal--it then goes to the next opposition party. I would have thought that this would have been the case here. Then you would go over to the government.

I would look to the analyst or to the clerk's office to get some sort of clarification on that particular point. What happened when the last majority government of Jean Chrétien was here? Was that not the case?

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Just give me a moment.

It might be appropriate, since Mr. Dykstra is making the motion, for him to comment, because it's in the form of a question. But I will say that I've sat on a number of committees, and the rules are different, by my observations. I'm calling them rules, but I guess they are motions of procedure. The rules are different with every committee. Each committee is the master of its own house. I don't think there's anything standard.

It's true that procedure in the last session was substantially different. Of course that was a minority situation.

It's Mr. Dykstra's motion. I'm going to ask him to comment on what you have said.

[Rick Dykstra, Conservative, St. Catharines, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm going to do two things. I will comment on Mr. Lamoureux's concern, and I would like to rework my motion. So if I could, I would like to read into the record how it would appear now. If I could remove the previous one, I'll introduce this one:

That the order of questions for the first round of questioning be as follows: Conservative, New Democratic Party, Conservative Party. That the order of questions for the second round of questioning be as follows: New Democratic Party, Liberal Party, Conservative Party. That the order of questions for the third round of questioning be as follows: Conservative, New Democratic Party, Conservative. That the order of questions for the fourth round of questioning be as follows: Conservative, New Democrat. After the fourth round, the committee would return to the original sequence of questioning.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Just give me a moment to see if I understand what you're up to here.

You're suggesting that at the end of proposed motion number 4, you'd have to take out the words “subsequent rounds”.

[An hon. member]

You mean third and fourth rounds, because third and fourth are identical.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

You're talking about the fourth round. The fourth round would be Conservative, NDP—

[Rick Dykstra, Conservative, St. Catharines, ON]

I'd be happy to explain how this sequence actually—

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

The words “subsequent rounds” would be deleted, I assume, and replaced with “the order of questions would be Conservative, NDP...”.

Is that your intent?

[Rick Dykstra, Conservative, St. Catharines, ON]

No. The order of questions for the fourth round would be Conservative, New Democratic Party, and then the committee would return to the original sequence of questioning.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Okay, so after that for subsequent rounds--

[Rick Dykstra, Conservative, St. Catharines, ON]

We just go back to the order.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Do you understand that, Madam Clerk?

[Rick Dykstra, Conservative, St. Catharines, ON]

The effort and work that we've put into those sequences and how this questioning works is that for the four rounds, when you divide up.... And very rarely does this committee go more than four rounds. I know it is technically possible, but very rarely does a committee go further than four rounds. The system I'm moving as a motion actually allows for each member of this committee the opportunity to question witnesses and obviously to comment if they so choose.

The other aspect of this, which is part two, which I think deals with Mr. Lamoreux's concern, is that when you divide up the minutes and allocate those minutes specifically to the parties, you will see that it almost--not precisely, but within one percent--identifies the percentage that each party holds in the House of Commons. So each party is being treated fairly. Each party is getting an equitable percentage of time for questioning of witnesses and the opportunity obviously to use that time as they see fit. I've tried as much as possible to be fair, and I think we'll learn quickly that the process we will use is a good one.

I understand that in the previous Parliaments--certainly the previous two that I've sat in--there was the position of the opposition going first in the opening round. I certainly accept that when in fact during those two Parliaments the opposition held more seats in the House of Commons than the government did. So while I certainly at the time would have preferred to have the government going first, the fact is that the opposition held more seats and therefore retained the right to question witnesses first.

The government now holds more seats in the House, and I think they reserve the opportunity to question witnesses first.

Thank you.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

To be honest with you, in 20 years of sitting in parliaments of different forms I've never, ever experienced something of this nature. It blows my mind in terms of the degree to which the government feels that this is fair.

Could you imagine if you applied this very same principle to question period and other functions. There needs to be respect. There has to be respect in order for the committees to work. I cannot believe that you would not allow an opposition party the first opportunity in that round to be able to ask questions. You sit within a government caucus. You have many other resources that opposition members don't have and a great deal of time to expand on those types of resources.

What you are proposing is ludicrous within a parliamentary system.

I would ask you, Mr. Chair, and I look to the support staff, the clerk.

In the Parliament of Canada I can't believe that we wouldn't have some sort of indication from the clerk's office in terms of some sort of history of tradition. We have to respect the tradition. We might not like the fact of the makeup of the House of Commons, but I respect that we didn't win. But just because we didn't win doesn't mean that you can walk all over us as a political entity. Demonstrate some respect for the process of the institution we belong to.

The Liberal Party has garnered substantial support. We are an official party inside the House of Commons, Mr. Chair, and I think that needs to be respected.

I think it's fair for me to ask if the clerk can provide information to the committee as to what was the order when the last majority government was here.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Mr. Lamoreux, I have asked that question to the analysts and the clerk. They don't have that. I can only tell you that I have, as have several members here, sat on a number of committees, and the procedural rules for each committee are different for every committee I ever sat on.

In the last session I think that was a minority government and the opposition had more votes. I remember sitting where I am now and the opposition had a fair say as to what the procedural motions were going to be.

I don't want to get into debate with you. My job isn't to do that. I think that's the role of Mr. Dykstra to defend or talk to you. We'll let Mr. Dykstra have another go at it, and if that fails I'll suspend for a few minutes so that you two can have a chat.

Mr. Dykstra.

[Rick Dykstra, Conservative, St. Catharines, ON]

I understand. I've listened to Mr. Lamoureux's concerns, and I certainly appreciate them.

I've also put myself in the position of determining what is fair and equitable to this party, the New Democratic Party, and the Liberal Party of Canada. From my perspective, that fairness equates to the amount of time that is allocated for questioning. If you position that against the percentage of seats you hold in the House of Commons and you do the math, you do the numbers, it comes out as fair and as equitable as we could possibly be.

If what we're looking for here is fairness, equality, equity, and the opportunity to question witnesses, every person in this room is going to get the time allocation that is based on the percentage of their makeup in the House of Commons. From my perspective, it's fair, it's equitable, and it's based on percentage.

I don't know how we can get any fairer than that, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

I'm going to give Mr. Davies one comment, and then I'm going to suspend, unless we can resolve this.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Again, I hope you're keeping a speakers list, because--