Evidence of meeting #1 for Indigenous and Northern Affairs in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was charlie.
A recording is available from Parliament.
NDP
Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON
Thanks.
I appreciate my honourable colleague wanting to be fair to me by taking 25% of our time away from us and saying, “Don't worry, this is us giving you something.” I certainly wouldn't want to do any financial deals based on that kind of sense of fairness. The standard has been seven minutes in the first round. Now you say that you'll be fair to us and take one minute off the top, and then you say that at the very end we'll get three minutes while everyone else gets five.
The standing pattern has been established by committee, so it seems to me, with all due respect, that with the majority government coming in—and I heard this in the last majority government—it's “we have the majority so now we can establish rules that benefit us”. You have a majority on committee and you can overrule every single thing I say. You never actually even have to listen to your third party.
But if we're going to have a committee that's actually here to do substantive work, then the members who represent the parties have to be able to have the period to do that. I'm not arguing for any more of a spot than what has been the standard and has been established by the PROC committee. To establish the clear norms, the PROC committee is certainly the committee that I would look to.
What I'm being told here is, “Well, don't worry; if we shortchange you, it's actually because we like you.” I'm not interested in that notion. I'm interested in what we've had as a standard for MPs to participate in hearings in the 12 years and the five Parliaments that I've been here. The idea that this is somehow a better deal.... This is actually a worse deal.
I'm asking my colleagues—if we're going to start off on a pattern of a collegial and positive working relationship—that either we stick with what we had previously or we look to what we have at PROC, as opposed to this, which is obviously set up to shortchange the NDP.
Conservative
Jim Eglinski Conservative Yellowhead, AB
The Conservatives' stand on this is that those of us who have been in committees before realize that all too often six minutes is just not enough time to get that question around.
I support Charlie's feelings on this. We would like to go with what PROC has agreed on. We feel that it's a very fair time limit. It gives you an opportunity to get your question across, with good time limits. Seven minutes are usually not long enough either, but it's a lot better than six. We would support a change in the motion to follow what PROC had agreed on.
Liberal
Mike Bossio Liberal Hastings—Lennox and Addington, ON
If you look at what PROC agreed to, it did bump it to seven minutes for the first round, and then it was four blocks of five minutes. On the last one, I've now heard a discrepancy as to whether it was two minutes or three minutes at the end. Once again, the NDP is still sitting in a situation of two or three minutes as the last question at the end of the second round of questioning.
Is that what Charlie is proposing?
NDP
Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON
I'm proposing that we go to seven minutes, which has been the standard—
NDP
Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON
—in the first round. Having been on committee, I know the last block often gets cut anyway, so it doesn't matter whether it's five minutes or three minutes. I think it's a standard principle that it should be five minutes, because it was always five minutes in the past. That doesn't mean I'm always going to get that, but I certainly find it odd to write it into the standing orders that we're going to ensure I don't get that, so seven minutes, as my colleague says....
For my colleagues who are new, I'm not trying to pull the wool over your eyes here. We're going to be dealing with some very important technical issues that have to be worked through. We can rubber-stamp committee and we can blow through committee, but we're not doing the job that people sent us here to do.
Given the seriousness of the Prime Minister's commitment to this issue of reconciliation in the nation-to-nation relationship, we have to make sure that this is the committee tasked with providing the government with the road map for it, because these are very complicated issues. I'm certainly not willing to just agree to give up that extra minute. Time is the value that we have here in Parliament to do our work. That is the only currency we have as opposition, because you have a majority.
As I said, you don't have to listen to anything I say. You can overrule everything we do, but the only currency—
Liberal
NDP
Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON
The only currency we have in our role as opposition is our ability to use our time well to build a coherent narrative, working with the witnesses who come forward, so that we can bring forward recommendations that at the end of the day I hope will give the government some clear direction on how we actually can unravel some of these Gordian knots of issues that we've dealt with in indigenous affairs for the last 150 years.
Liberal
Mike Bossio Liberal Hastings—Lennox and Addington, ON
I hear you.
I guess my own thoughts would be, though, whether we want to take a minute away from the witnesses and their opening statements. A minute is a minute.
I would say that if you want to go on the route of seven minutes all the way across, with five minutes for the four and two minutes at the end so that the witnesses retain their 10 minutes of opening statement, I don't have an issue with that.
NDP
Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON
It does not say that the witnesses are going to be given less than their 10 minutes. It doesn't say that.
Liberal
NDP
Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON
I'm not asking for that.
What I'm asking for is that it say in the standing orders that we have the rules we've always had. You're suggesting now that by me defending the right of the third party to have proper representation that I'm somehow asking it from the witnesses. There will be times when we might have six witnesses across there, or five witnesses, and there's only going to be one round. We know that. There are other times when there's going to be one witness for that hour period.
I know that when we run out of time, it's always going to be at my expense. I get that. That's the luck of the electoral draw. But what I'm seeing here.... No offence, but I've been in five Parliaments, and sunny ways is only as good as the willingness of the members to actually come through and put it into the standing orders. If the standing orders aren't there, then what I'm seeing is a deliberate attempt to make sure that we are marginalized in our ability to do our job. That's something that will set a very bad tone, I think, for a committee that should be working in a very collegial manner.
I was rather surprised when I saw this. I saw this routine motion adopted by the standing committee in the 41st Parliament had been passed around, and I thought I guess they made a mistake with this new one that the Liberals are passing around and they're reminding us that the previous one worked well enough. But no, it's like the previous thing had worked well enough but we're going to improve it by making sure that we shortchange the NDP.
I like my colleagues on the other side; I think you guys are all great. I don't necessarily trust some of the advice you're getting, but, to me, I'm seeing a bit of spite here for the work we're doing in opposition.
I just really want to get this clear. It's seven minutes in the first round. I don't want it written in the standing orders that I'm down to two minutes in the last round. If the chair cuts me off at two minutes, I accept that because that's the role of the chair, to maintain the clock. The clock is what's going to decide this. But I don't want it in the standing order that if we're working well to the time, it's like, “Hey, you only have two minutes here.” That just sets a very, very bad tone on day one.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Andy Fillmore
Thank you for that, Charlie. I'm glad we're having a good discussion on this.
I now have Rémi, Jim, and then David.
Liberal
Rémi Massé Liberal Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
We could discuss this issue for a long time. The approach we have tried to adopt is fair. My colleague Mr. Bossio did a good job of explaining the approach we have adopted to try to achieve balanced representation for each party.
To resolve this situation, we could adopt the rotating schedule of speakers used by the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, PROC. I am in favour of the proposal to adopt PROC's schedule, whereby Liberals would take the floor first for seven minutes, followed by the Conservatives for seven minutes, the New Democrats for seven minutes and the Liberals for seven minutes. In the second round, the Conservatives would have five minutes, the Liberals five minutes, the Conservatives five minutes and the Liberals five minutes. Finally, we would wrap up with the New Democrats for two minutes. That is the proposal I am putting forward.
Conservative
Jim Eglinski Conservative Yellowhead, AB
I'd like some verification.
When Mike was speaking, he mentioned two minutes at the end. I believe it's three minutes if we're going to follow through on PROC. It says three minutes at the end for the NDP.
I just want clarification for my friend.
Liberal
Rémi Massé Liberal Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC
Yes, I think there is a mistake. We are allowed up to 50 minutes, so if we put three minutes, it would bring us to 51. I'm sure there was a mistake there. It's supposed to be two minutes.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Andy Fillmore
We're going to get to David, but I'm checking with the clerk and we could go to 51 minutes. That's no problem. We could set the time as we see fit, and if it's the committee's—
Conservative
Jim Eglinski Conservative Yellowhead, AB
I think in fairness it would be good to give them that opportunity.