National Defence Committee on June 21st, 2011

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Is everybody clear on that?

Mr. Kellway, did you have a question?

[Matthew Kellway, NDP, Beaches—East York, ON]

No. I understand now that it is being amended so that all times refer to 4 p.m. It's no longer 6 p.m. so that it allows for translation as well. That's fine.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Seeing no other questions, we are voting on the subamendment.

(Subamendment agreed to)

Now we're voting on the amended motion.

(Motion as amended agreed to) [See Minutes of Proceedings]

On allocation of time for witness presentations and questioning of witnesses, Mr. Alexander.

[Chris Alexander, Conservative, Ajax—Pickering, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

This item has been the object of some consultation, both on our side and across the table with members opposite. The proposal we would like to make is that we adjust the first round of seven minutes each to read as follows: Conservative, NDP, Conservative, and Liberal; secondly, that the second round of five minutes each be adjusted to read NDP, Conservative, NDP, Conservative, NDP, Conservative, and Conservative.

That would allow for each member of this committee to speak once in either the first or second round in each round of questioning of witnesses, and it would, as closely as possible, reflect the new distribution of weight by party in the House of Commons.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

So you want Conservative, NDP, Conservative, Liberal in the first round, with seven minutes each--

[Chris Alexander, Conservative, Ajax—Pickering, ON]

That's correct.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

--and then NDP, Conservative, NDP, Conservative, NDP, Conservative, Conservative.

[Chris Alexander, Conservative, Ajax—Pickering, ON]

That's correct.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

I have Mr. McKay.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

His proposal flies in the face of every precedent that this committee, and in fact all committees I've ever sat on, has ever had.

The usual process is some version of a party round, which is the first round--three parties, three questions, seven minutes each. That's been true in both majority governments and minority governments.

I just go back to the last time this committee was in a majority government. The first round was seven minutes and it was Alliance, PQ, Liberal, NDP, Progressive Conservative, all treated equally. But it was one question per party in the first round, at seven minutes each.

In fact if you do it so that you load it up for the Conservative Party, you essentially reduce the time available for other members in their own party, because a seven-minute round effectively becomes a round and a half for the second round. So you're departing enormously from precedent.

The second thing is that when it was a majority government the last time--and we had more seats than the Conservatives currently have--we again treated everybody equally, because the point of a committee is to allow the opposition in particular access to ministers, to staff, and to various other people the government might wish to put forward, as opposed to the government members, all of whom have tremendous access to ministers, associate ministers, deputies, staff, and briefings. That's why you in effect create an uneven playing field until you get to the third round.

To effectively relegate the Liberal Party, in particular, to one question for every sitting is frankly an insult to any democratic notion I've ever understood. If we want to have here a tyranny of the majority, which is how I see this proposal, then that is in fact what you're going to achieve. There will be consequences. There will be consequences that flow from that in terms of the collegiality and the ability of this committee to arrive at consensus.

Frankly, if the Liberal Party in particular, but the NDP as well, don't have meaningful input into reports, what's the point? You want consensus. And if you want consensus, this is no way to go about getting consensus.

I just want to point out the contrast between when the Liberal Party had a majority and how it treated all minority parties, and how the Conservative Party now treats minority parties. You couldn't have a starker contrast. This is a recipe for a tyranny of the majority.

And frankly, if this is the way it's going to be--and you have the power--then you effectively render minority parties to the sidelines. And if you render minority parties to the sidelines, there are consequences that flow from that, and in effect the committee becomes a rubber stamp for government.

Either the questioning becomes meaningful--i.e., there is no doubling up for the government party in the first round and there is space reserved for the Liberal Party in the second round--or frankly we're all sitting here wasting our time.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

I actually agree with you on the first round, Mr. McKay, that seven minutes should be equal among parties.

In all the committees I've served on since I've been here, which goes back to when we were in opposition in a minority government, the committees of agriculture and environment have had the practice that we are all here as private members, first and foremost, so no member of a committee should get to ask a second question until every member on that committee has had a chance to ask a first question. So I do agree--although it's up to Mr. Alexander if he wants to change it or if somebody wants to move that amendment--that one Conservative in the first round should actually be leading off the second round instead of being in the first round.

I could also say that the way I run my meetings, I don't like to load up with a whole pile of witnesses. I like to have two or three, tops, and that gives more than enough time, because I am very judicious in the way I allocate time. We always get back to a final round, and for whatever time is left on the table, we go back to the first round and split that time evenly among the three parties. That's the way we've always run it so every party has a chance to ask a final question before we move on. That way the Liberals would get a final question before the end of the meeting, so you would have one in the first round and then one in the final round.

With that, we have Mr. Harris, and then Mr. Norlock and Madam Gallant.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

Thank you, Chair.

I want to recognize your experience in your suggestion here, and I was proposing to move something similar in an amendment. I'll preface it by my comments, I suppose.

I agree with Mr. McKay that the first round is essentially a party round—one for each party is the first round, with the seven-minute attached to it, and the usual order is the opposition first, although I'm not solid on that.

So I would move an amendment that the first round consist of three: the Liberal, NDP, and Conservative—not in that order, but let's say Conservative, NDP, Liberal; that the second round consist of five minutes each, again following the rule that all members who haven't yet spoken get an opportunity to speak, and the order is not important—the Conservatives can go first, and back and forth—

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Or until everybody asks a question.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

—so everybody has five minutes; and that there be a third round.

Now, it says there are five minutes each, but again it's at the discretion of the chair the way these things are written. And I agree with your discretion there, that the remaining time be divided among the three parties as another final party round. So we just knock the Bloc Québécois out of the existing rule here and just change the order. I don't have a proposal for an order for the third round, but I guess it would be opposition first and—

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

NDP, CPC, and Liberal.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

NDP, CPC, and Liberal could be fine.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Okay.

So essentially you'd be looking at, first round, NDP, CPC, Liberal; the second round would be Conservative, NDP, Conservative, NDP, Conservative, NDP, Conservative; and third round would be NDP, Conservative, Liberal.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

The Liberals can go first before the CPC in the first round.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Well, then you've got two back-to-back Conservatives right off the bat.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

Okay. Well, do it the other way, then.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Okay.

I have Mr. Norlock and then Madam Gallant.

[Rick Norlock, Conservative, Northumberland—Quinte West, ON]

I think Mr. Harris would agree that when he was on the public safety committee it was basically the way Mr. Alexander expressed it. The NDP got one question.

My preference is this: if we're all valued members of the committee, and I believe we are, then every member of the committee should get to at least ask one question. If we go to Mr. McKay's version, some of us will never ever get to ask a witness a question unless somebody is benevolent enough to allow us to do so.

I think it's very important that every member of the committee get a question, and that's why I support Mr. Alexander's submission.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Okay.

Madam Gallant.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Yes, I would not be supporting Mr. Harris's amendment. There was talk about this alleged tyranny of the majority, but we have experienced over the years the tyranny of the opposition when it had fewer members. Often what happens is that we have to split time in the meeting. And I know that you can say we'll change the witnesses' speaking time, but that always requires unanimous consent. Repeatedly government members would not have a chance to speak at all, and the party with the fewest representatives in the House would have repeated opportunities in lieu of government members.

So on that basis, I support the motion as put forth by Mr. Alexander.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Okay, so you're speaking against the subamendment.

But I'll just guarantee you that I will not load up the end of the table with so many witnesses that we don't get a chance for every member to ask a question. I find that a real restraint to our parliamentary privilege that we have here. I do believe that every member of this committee has a chance to ask questions of every witness that we bring before this committee. And I'm very judicious on my time. I will cut people off.

I have Mr. McKay, Mr. Alexander, and then Madam Moore.