Evidence of meeting #1 for International Trade in the 39th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was clerk.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Conservative
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Lee Richardson
We have people who want to address the amendment.
We'll go to Mr. Masse.
NDP
Brian Masse NDP Windsor West, ON
Quickly, to my colleagues, we can go through several different machinations of models, but if something works, keep it. Sometimes you'll be late. There are votes. Witnesses could be going on a little extra time at the discretion of the chair. All these things end up mucking it all up. I would say that we should defeat these amendments and go with the regular motion that's on the paper.
Conservative
Brian Pallister Conservative Portage—Lisgar, MB
I'd suggest that those are relative comments. If members don't show up, they've clearly disqualified themselves from positioning themselves to speak in the debate, regardless of what order of speaking we choose. That's an irrelevant point.
The point is this: either we choose to treat the parties equally or the members equally. There's a reason committees are configured the way they are. They're a reflection of the will of the Canadian people. The members on this committee reflect the percentages, roughly, of the support we receive in the House of Commons from the Canadian people. No member of this committee should be disqualified from speaking in advance of another member or another party that was not so blessed with support.
The fact of this proposal is this: it would give the Bloc three opportunities to speak and deprive both the Conservative and Liberal parties from having a member participate in the debate. It would give the NDP a disproportionate opportunity to speak. Of course speaking three times with one member on committee is clearly not fair to other members of the committee.
I would suggest to my colleagues in the Liberal Party that if they support this, they are showing a real disinterest in participating in the debates of this committee. It precisely reveals that fact. The fact remains that they are giving their opportunity to speak in debates pertinent to the issues of international trade to other political organizations so they can have a disproportionate voice at committee. That is precisely and exactly the effect of supporting this particular proposed model.
To argue that this has somehow been here before so it should continue is of course also a foolish argument to make. It's an argument that.... I've heard conservatives defined as people who believe that nothing should ever be done for the first time. Well, I would tell you that you're showing the worst of that conservative definition if you support the status quo and the status quo is wrong.
Clearly, this is not fair to the members of this committee. So I would strongly urge you not to support a continuation of something that is so blatantly unfair to the very members who should be concerned.
Conservative
Larry Miller Conservative Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON
On the point that Mr. Masse made, and Mr. Bains, about the status quo and don't change anything, this is not a precedent. The committees that I have sat on go by this model. I couldn't believe it when I heard yesterday that this committee didn't operate under the same way. Like, how long has that gone on? It's not right.
If you do your homework, there are very few committees that operate like this. Any of the ones that I actually checked into operate by the model that I have proposed. It's fair. I mean, it's the same speaking arrangement as the way that the committees have been divided up.
So it is not a precedent, if that's what you think.
Thank you.
Liberal
Navdeep Bains Liberal Mississauga—Brampton South, ON
I appreciate the comments made, and the passionate plea made by Mr. Pallister.
With respect to the status quo, in the past our experience in this committee has been very clear. This process has worked very well. Time was shared. This committee on the whole has tended to be less partisan, and it's worked very well.
Based on that experience, my opinion is that the status quo makes sense--on experiences as opposed to the argument on representation.
That's my position.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Lee Richardson
As a new chair, and having not been on this committee, I presume from what you've said, Mr. Bains, that the status quo is the method proposed by the clerk. That's number one on our chart here?
Liberal
Conservative
Ron Cannan Conservative Kelowna—Lake Country, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I just wanted to comment on Mr. Bains' comment to the effect that it was working well. I totally disagree. As one of the members who sat over here and prepared, it was very frustrating. Many days I didn't have the opportunity, when, as Mr. Pallister articulated, the NDP had three questions and we had one chance, sometimes not even as a member sitting here unless we shared the time and got half of a question. And I don't think that's fair.
So if this isn't going to work, we have to come up with some other reasonable compromise. I won't be supporting the specific speaking order that's proposed.
Thank you.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Lee Richardson
We are still on Mr. Miller's proposed amendment.
Mr. Pallister, do you have a question?
Conservative
Brian Pallister Conservative Portage—Lisgar, MB
Yes, just a quick comment.
Is it all right to refer to colleagues by name? Is that okay? All right.
With regard to Navdeep's comments, look, I'm all for non-partisanship, but I think it's a bit of a contradiction to say that it's somehow more partisan to allocate speaking opportunities based on party.
Don't you see the contradiction in this? We are all members of the House of Commons here, and we should all have the opportunity to participate in debates equally. To allocate speaking opportunities based on party is in fact a partisan criterion that you're using. It doesn't make sense.
So I would hope that some compromise can be reached that would accommodate the possibility that all our members will have the chance to participate in debates fairly and equally.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Lee Richardson
I have no further members on the speaking list....
I'm sorry, Mr. Maloney.
Liberal
John Maloney Liberal Welland, ON
What is the speaking order of debates in the House of Commons? Is there such a thing?
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Lee Richardson
It's just the lead speakers in each case, in debate, and then it's at the....
Liberal
John Maloney Liberal Welland, ON
No, in practice, how does the Speaker recognize those wishing to participate? In my recollection, they seem to go through—
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Lee Richardson
It's negotiated by the House leaders at each Parliament. It's based on proportional representation in the House. It is fair, based on the numbers of elected members that each party has. The official opposition gets more questions, just like question period, than do the other opposition parties.
Mr. Miller.
Conservative
Larry Miller Conservative Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON
Just to comment on that, Mr. Maloney, I believe Mr. Richardson is absolutely right; to my understanding and reading of it, that's decided and laid out by representation.
I have just one last point to make, Mr. Chairman, and then I'll shut up on this.
With regard to “any” member, whether from this side or from the Liberals, when you're passing on your time or your opportunity to speak to someone other than in your party, and delegating it, you're shirking your duty. I would feel it would be the same way here for me to miss it. I haven't got a chance to do my job here as a member of this committee.
I just throw that out as a last comment.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Lee Richardson
We have no further discussion on the amendment.
(Amendment negatived)
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Lee Richardson
We will now move to the original motion as described here. Is there any discussion?
Mr. Cannan.
Conservative
Conservative