Evidence of meeting #1 for International Trade in the 40th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was chair.

A recording is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Clerk of the Committee  Mr. Jean-Marie David

10:05 a.m.

Conservative

Gerald Keddy Conservative South Shore—St. Margaret's, NS

I guess I will take one final kick at the can. I don't think it's a motion that's meant to hold up the committee in any way, shape, or form. It certainly in no way, shape, or form limits debate. It limits debate to 15 minutes at the end of a meeting in which we have witnesses; if there are no witnesses, obviously the motion is going to be debated.

There are a number of players here who have been chairs of committee. I've sat on those committees, and I've been a chair of a committee myself. It's within the purview of the chair, to begin with. All this does is hold it over until another day, but it prevents.... If I'm looking at the witness list and there's a group of witnesses whom, for some reason, we think we shouldn't hear, or the opposition members may think they shouldn't hear, literally they can put in a notice of motion and debate that motion as long as they have the votes. This prevents any motion by anybody at committee from being debated for more than 15 minutes at that meeting, but it doesn't preclude its being debated at the next meeting, if the debate is not over.

10:05 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Lee Richardson

That's one point on which I can't understand why there's any concern.

10:05 a.m.

Conservative

Gerald Keddy Conservative South Shore—St. Margaret's, NS

It's precluding the debate.

10:05 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Lee Richardson

When there's a debate, you can carry on the debate at the next meeting.

In any event, we have had a call for the question, so I'm going to call the question.

(Motion negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

10:05 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Lee Richardson

The next motion concerns rounds of questioning. The first part, I think, is pretty straightforward.

Yes, the rounds-of-questioning motion is pretty standard. It is that witnesses from any one organization shall be allowed 10 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.

I think that's pretty straightforward; it's standard procedure. I would like to just say for new members of this committee that it has been our practice, if we have more than one witness, that we would hear all of the witnesses in sequence and then begin questioning the witnesses jointly, so that we at least get one round of questioning in of all the witnesses. That could be also understood as we address this motion.

Is there any debate on this particular motion?

It was moved by Mr. Allison.

(Motion agreed to)

10:05 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Lee Richardson

The next one is slightly different.

Yes, Mr. Julian.

10:05 a.m.

NDP

Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC

I will be moving a motion on the speaking order, but I'll let you introduce it first.

10:05 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Lee Richardson

Yes, let me just speak to it for a second.

The change in numbers in the House obviously is reflected in the committee. The difference in this particular committee as opposed to the last committee is that there is one more on the government side and one less on the opposition side. The speaking order then reflects the new distribution of the House and of the committee.

What all of this essentially says is that each member will have an opportunity to ask a question before any member has a chance to speak twice. Essentially we'd begin, as we have in the past, with the Liberals asking questions for seven minutes, followed by the Bloc for seven minutes, probably by the NDP for seven minutes, and probably the government party for seven minutes.

In the next round, if it's again at five minutes, it would be the Bloc for five minutes and then the Conservatives for five minutes. That would give everyone in the opposition a chance to speak--well, except for one Liberal, but it still leaves three Conservatives.

The next round would just be a Liberal and then a Conservative until we have heard from each member. We would alternate government and opposition until each member has been heard. But because now there are five Conservative members, at one point we'll have Conservative, Conservative at the end so that each person has a chance to ask a five-minute question. Then we'll revert back to the start again, should there be time.

That's essentially how it is. I have done the numbers and worked the percentages and the fairness and all of that. It really does, in my view, reflect a fairness in that each person has an opportunity to ask one question before any member gets to ask two questions. The only difference is that the first round of questioning for each party will allow seven minutes, and subsequent rounds will be five minutes.

So I'll state the motion on the order of questions and then open it to debate: in the first round it shall be Liberal, Bloc, NDP, Conservative; questions during the second round shall alternate between opposition members and government members--Liberal, Conservative, Bloc, Conservative, Liberal, Conservative, Conservative--based on the principle that each committee member should have a full opportunity to question the witnesses. If time permits, further rounds shall repeat the pattern of the first two, at the discretion of the chair.

Can I have a mover for that motion?

Mr. Cannis moves the motion--

10:10 a.m.

NDP

Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC

Actually, Mr. Chair, I had signalled that I would be moving a motion. I move that we adopt--

10:10 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Lee Richardson

We just had a mover of this motion, and we're debating it. If you would like to make an amendment, you can go ahead.

10:10 a.m.

NDP

Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC

Mr. Chair, I had already indicated to you that I had a motion to bring forward. I had already indicated that to you.

10:10 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Lee Richardson

We have a motion on the floor. You can move to amend it.

10:10 a.m.

NDP

Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC

Then my amendment is that we strike everything after the introductory phrase for the order of questions and replace it with the official languages committee lineup for speaking order: that witnesses be given ten minutes for their opening statement; that for the first round the following order, for seven minutes, is the official opposition, the Bloc, the NDP, and government; second round, for five minutes, the official opposition, the government, Bloc, NDP; third round, for five minutes, the official opposition, Bloc Québécois, government, NDP; and fourth round, for five minutes, official opposition, government, Bloc, NDP.

10:10 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Lee Richardson

Mr. Julian has proposed an amendment.

10:10 a.m.

NDP

Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC

I'd like to speak to that, if I might.

10:10 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Lee Richardson

I'll allow you to speak to that. I think we get the gist of it, Mr. Julian.

10:10 a.m.

NDP

Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

As Mr. Cannis knows, this is exactly the structure we had in the 38th Parliament, when this was a subcommittee and not a standing committee. Essentially it was how we practised in the beginning of the 39th Parliament, until we had a radical shift and switched to something that didn't allow for supplementary questions from all members of the opposition.

It's based on the principle that each party around the table represents a certain proportion of the Canadian public and that the opposition parties represent important points of view, so the rotation is between all four parties. Given that other committees, such as the official languages committee, have maintained that structure, it makes sense to do the same here. It allows every Liberal member and every Bloc member to speak. It allows the NDP, whether it's me or my substitute, Mr. Allen, to speak.

It does mean that the Conservatives get fewer speaking opportunities, but all members of the Conservative Party would be allowed to question as well, provided questioning goes on. But it provides a particularly balanced approach among the opposition parties so that the opposition voices can be heard. That's why I'm proposing what the official languages committee has used and what has worked very effectively for them, and what this committee used to use until we had that shift brought forward by the Conservatives midway through the last Parliament.

10:15 a.m.

Conservative

Dean Allison Conservative Niagara West—Glanbrook, ON

It's called an election.

10:15 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Lee Richardson

I think it was an election. In any event, we'll carry on.

Monsieur Cardin, on Mr. Julian's amendment.

10:15 a.m.

Bloc

Serge Cardin Bloc Sherbrooke, QC

First of all, if I may, I would point out that there is a difference between the French version and the English version. In the French version, the NDP appears in the second round, but in the English version, it does not.

10:15 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Lee Richardson

This is just a translation error. The correct form is the English form.

Could you just clarify that for Monsieur Cardin, that the error is in the translation, not in the intent here?

10:15 a.m.

Bloc

Serge Cardin Bloc Sherbrooke, QC

First, we need to establish in which version the problem arises. I often tend to agree with Mr. Julian. It's unfortunate that he has left without knowing that, in the French version, his party was indeed mentioned in the second round. That wasn't bad.

I will come back to this later, Mr. Chairman. I am just doing my own calculations.

10:15 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Lee Richardson

All right.

Mr. Allison.

10:15 a.m.

Conservative

Dean Allison Conservative Niagara West—Glanbrook, ON

Mr. Chair, I'm really just speaking to the Liberals here on this. I believe the speaking order that has been laid out is about fairness. We get elected. To Mr. Julian's point, things were different maybe in the 38th Parliament, but we had an election, and if you would like to have more speaking opportunities, maybe you should elect more members to the House of Commons.

This is clearly based on the fact that all of us take time out of our busy schedules to sit on committee, and there's no reason that the official opposition should lose speaking turns any more than the government should lose speaking turns. This is a reflection based on what it looks like in the House of Commons.

So my suggestion is that we look at what Mr. Richardson put forward. The fact remains that we all take time out of our busy schedules to prepare for these meetings. Everyone should get an equal opportunity to speak once, before anyone gets a chance to speak twice. As I said, under this current proposal, not only will the government not have an opportunity for people who have prepared to have a chance to speak, but members of the official opposition will not have a chance to speak.

This is a reflection of what happens in the House. Questions are divided that way. I respectfully submit the fact that in committee our numbers are reflected the same way, and every member should have a chance to speak, because we're all here and we all have to do our own work and our homework to be here.

10:15 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Lee Richardson

Thank you.

Mr. Easter.