International Trade Committee on Nov. 15th, 2007

[Larry Miller, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

It would read as is for the first round of questions. In the second round of five minutes, it would then be a Liberal, a Bloc, and a Conservative. In the third round it would be a Liberal and a Conservative, and in the fourth round it would be a Liberal and a Conservative. That would complete the first round, and then you start all over again in the same way. That way, Mr. Chairman, every member of this committee gets a chance to ask questions.

Now, for example, if Mr. Maloney asks in all four sequences for the Liberals, that's the Liberals' choice, but at least it gives that opportunity for every member.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

That would be proportional to the representation of the committee, which is proportionate to the representation of elected members in the House.

[Larry Miller, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Exactly.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

Okay. Does everyone understand the amendment?

[Larry Miller, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

I have one last comment, Mr. Chairman.

Every one of us—I know I do, and I take it that everyone else does—prepares to come here for a two-hour meeting and to do our jobs, and if somebody on this committee doesn't get a chance to question, they're not representing themselves or the constituents or their respective parties. That's why I proposed this.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

We have an amendment, but let me just interrupt for one minute to indicate a precedent that I've used in the past as a previous chair of a committee. That is, often when I'm talking to people—for example, Mr. Miller right now—I'm not always able to recognize who has their hand up. So I've taken to turning to the clerk and asking the clerk to keep a list of the order in which people have raised their hands to get the attention of the clerk if they want to be heard on the point on a speakers list. I will not keep a speakers list as the chair. I'm going to ask the clerk to do that in all cases, so that if you want to be addressed or recognized, please try to get the attention of the clerk, because I may not be able to recognize you if I'm looking this way and there's somebody over there, but the clerk has to.

The next one on the clerk's list then is Mr. Allison.

[Dean Allison, Conservative, Niagara West—Glanbrook, ON]

Just to speak to that point, I was on this committee last year and I prepared just like any other member, and there were times when some of my Liberal colleagues as well as myself did not get a chance to speak. If we're going to commit the time to be at a committee twice a week—I know some of us sit on two committees—I think that we should all have a chance to participate at least once before we start the second round.

There may be times when we defer and other people pick up extra rounds, and that's fine. But I think at the very least, for the courtesy of the members who prepare and come to this committee ready to participate, everyone should be given a chance to go at least once before we start a second round.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

Mr. Masse.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I've also participated in committees in which members have split question time as well. Maybe it's not the intent of the government with this motion, but the result would be an elimination of an NDP spot. I would suggest that when the committees I've participated on made these types of changes, they often created ill will at the start of the actual session, because it really altered significantly what was done in the past. The successful committees I've been on have had that second spot. I'm certainly cognizant of the fact that everyone wants to be able to participate and ask questions during a meeting, but they are able to do so under the current system.

I would suggest that the status quo would be very helpful for the committee to go forward.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

Is there any further discussion?

Monsieur Cardin.

[Serge Cardin, Bloc, Sherbrooke, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The arrangements made for the allocation of speaking time by members of the international trade committee worked relatively well. If I understand correctly, Mr. Miller would like each member to be allowed to speak and to put his question. As we know, practically speaking, the number of questions per party takes precedence over the fact that each party member asks a question. Often times, a member may have a special interest in an issue. This question should not necessarily be considered in terms of the number of persons or individuals.

I had heard talk of wanting to alter procedure. That's why I started to calculate the weighted average. Based on the number of parties, namely four, and the number of members, I came up with a somewhat different result. Unfortunately, according to my calculations, based on four rounds of questions, the Liberals would have be entitled to four questions, the Conservatives, to four questions, the Bloc Québécois, to three questions, and the NDP, to two questions. In this case, I think these expectations could possibly be met. For the first round, the order of questioning would be as follows: the Liberal Party, the Bloc Québécois, the NDP, the Conservative party. For the second round, the order of questioning would be: the Liberal Party, the Bloc Québécois, the Conservative Party. For the third round, the order would be: the Liberal Party, the Conservative Party, the Bloc Québécois, the NDP; and finally, for the fourth round, the Conservative Party, the Liberal Party and the Conservative Party. That would give us the mathematical representation, according to my calculations.

You are always free to challenge my calculations. However, my objective was to ensure that this fair for everyone. According to most calculations, approximately 68 minutes are allocated for questions. By following this order, we also come in at 68 minutes, or thereabouts. Everyone would have an opportunity to put a question, unless, of course, some time is wasted.

Moreover, if people believe that time limits will not be respected, but they will still want to ask a question, then they need only make their questions clearer and more concise. Instead of using up seven minutes initially, they can take up five or six. That way, each party would have time to get through all of the questions it has for the witnesses.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

I think what we have is a further suggestion. From a tactical point of view here, you are either proposing a subamendment to Mr. Miller's amendment or we will perhaps ask you to hold that until we deal with the first amendment and then you could propose a second amendment if you wanted to have it different from the amendment that's on the floor.

[Larry Miller, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

On a point of order, Mr. Chair.

[Serge Cardin, Bloc, Sherbrooke, QC]

I was commenting on the motion on the table. From a practical standpoint, I would prefer to proceed in this manner rather than in the manner suggested. I would prefer this order.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

Okay, and that it wasn't to the amendment, I take that.

Mr. Miller.

[Larry Miller, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

To Mr. Cardin, this is about fairness and equal representation based on elected representation. The decision as to the number of members on these committees is based on the number of MPs elected. So when you don't give everyone a chance to speak before someone else has a second go at it, unless that turn of course is passed over by one of their colleagues, which is possible, although in committees I've sat on in the last three and a half year that does not happen very often.... I don't know what the history of this one is, but to—

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

Sir, can I just interrupt?

We do have a speakers list. I thought you were going to raise a point of order. I'm sorry. We do have a speakers list, and you're not next.

Mr. Pallister.

[Brian Pallister, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Thank you for the opportunity to speak for a first time to something others have spoken to a couple of times.

Let me propose something. I believe we all agree with the principle of equality of members. I agree generally with Mr. Cardin's words, so I'd like to suggest what I think would be a better model to achieve what he has proposed.

The fault in what he has proposed is that it allows a second opportunity for both the Bloc and NDP members to enter into the discussion before it allows a Liberal or a Conservative member to speak for the first time. I think it would make more sense to go with the proposal we have spoken about. I would like to suggest in response to his concerns that if we go with the first round as was suggested—Liberal, Bloc, NDP, Conservative—and then the second round as Liberal, Bloc, Conservative, that gives both Bloc members an early opportunity to participate ahead of most other members of the Liberal and Conservative parties. If we were to subsequently go Liberal, Conservative, Liberal, Conservative, that allows every committee member to speak once. Then—and here is my proposal—rather than return to the original order, go Bloc and NDP. Provided there are 70 minutes, that would allow a disproportionate participation by both the Bloc and NDP, which is out of proportion to their membership in the House. If we don't have 70 minutes, I agree it does not, but if we do have that length of time, it does.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

Again, we're getting into a subamendment. What we're dealing with right now is the amendment by Mr. Miller.

We could go on all day if we don't deal with them one at a time, so we'll just deal with Mr. Miller's. For clarity, I've asked the clerk to put these on the board so we can see the proposal distributed by the clerk and the proposal as suggested by Mr. Miller. We'll deal with those two, and then we'll carry on if there are further amendments required.

[Larry Miller, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

May I speak to my amendment while he's writing that up?

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

You bet. Mr. Miller, carry on.

[Larry Miller, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

I apologize, Mr. Chairman. I didn't think there was a point of order any more because Mr. Cardin was arguing in favour of the original.

Mr. Cardin, I think it's important that you hear my comment.

The committees were divided up by the number of MPs from each party for a reason, based on representation. I believe the questioning should go the same way. If you or any other one of us has a problem with the way the committees are divided up, then I would suggest that we have the four House leaders sit down and deal with this. But I believe that at some point the four of them did that, and this was how they decided it.

As Mr. Pallister pointed out so eloquently, it's not fair for anyone to get an opportunity to ask questions before someone else has had that opportunity at least once. If I want to pass my turn to somebody I can, but at least I've had the opportunity. You want to take that away from me, or someone over there. That's what it does. This isn't about trying to pick on the Bloc or the NDP; it's about making it fair all the way through.

Really, anybody from the Bloc, or particularly the NDP, has a chance every committee meeting to be guaranteed seven minutes, where I don't unless I'm the first speaker. I don't have a problem with that, but that's another thing I would point out.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

I just want to make clear what we're talking about here. Here is the proposal at the top that has been proposed by the clerk, and that is that the first round be seven minutes for Liberal, Bloc, Conservative, and NDP. The second round would be five minutes. The third round would be the same as the second round, and the fourth round would be the same as the second round. So by the time you got through four rounds you would have had each of the parties able to speak four times. But we'd be at 70 minutes, or whatever it is. It's longer. Usually what happens is that we don't get to the fourth round. That's 88 minutes to do the first one.

The fact is that you wouldn't get to the next round, so you'd end up with three opportunities for everybody. So you would have, in terms of the membership of the committee, one Liberal who would not have an opportunity to ask a question, unless his time was split with another member, and it would be the same for the Conservatives. They would not have an opportunity for each member to speak.

So this is the proposal as suggested by Mr. Miller, I take it. Mr. Miller, is that correct? In the first round you would have Liberal, Bloc, NDP, and Conservative for seven minutes each. In the second round you would have Liberal, Bloc, and Conservative for five minutes each. The third round would be Liberal and Conservative. The fourth round would be Liberal and Conservative.

What you would get there is every member, because you have four Liberals, four Conservatives, two Bloc, and one NDP. Everybody has a chance to speak once before we revert to the top again. That's the difference between the two proposals as--

[Larry Miller, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

You have eleven questioning times laid out.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

This one would be 63 minutes long, so it's essentially an hour.

That is the proposal we have before us. So everybody is clear, the motion is the top one and the amendment that is currently on the floor is the second one. The difference is that it is based more on the individual member of the committee getting an opportunity to speak, as opposed to a division with regard to the number of party members, whether the party has 19 members or 126.

Go ahead, Mr. Cannan.