National Defence Committee on June 21st, 2011

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

I'm not quite sure where we're at with Jack's amendment.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

We're on Jack's amendment.

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

Jack's amendment is NDP, Liberal, CPC?

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Yes, in the first round, NDP, CPC, Liberal.

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

I'd quibble about that only because you want opposition to ask questions and then the government asks questions.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Don't get me wrong, I think it's--

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

If Jack's thought is friendly I'd go NDP, Liberal, CPC.

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

The chair suggested that then you'd have two Conservatives running back to back in the first round.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Right after the first round, yes.

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

I note that the original motion doesn't even call for a third round. The idea here is that you start with the three parties and you end with the three parties, even if it is a reduced amount of time. Then the second round allows everybody who hasn't been in the first round to ask a question.

Cheryl, you're right, there were lots of times when government members split their time, but most of the time the splitting of the time was that the government member would ask a couple of questions and then give the rest of the time to the parliamentary secretary. I think you remember that quite well.

So I don't think that's a big worry. I think the chair can ensure that every member of the committee gets a chance to ask a question in the second round who hasn't been in the first round. I like the idea of a third round because even if it was only two minutes each or three minutes each then each party then got to have a go at a question. And it's going to be easier this time out because we don't have four parties in the first round, which we did the last time. That took 28 minutes of the questioning with four parties in the first round. Now we only have three in the first round.

The second round is five minutes each and everybody gets a chance to ask a question. Then in the third round, again because we only have three parties, the division of that time would be easier. So it would meet both concerns, one that the parties be represented in the committee and that every committee member gets to ask a question. I think by putting that in the second round instead of having four in the first round there would be more opportunity to ensure that everybody got to ask a question because you take two minutes away from the total of the first round.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

I want to remind members that we are almost out of time here. It's a quarter to, and we do have to drop the hammer. This is the last motion we have on the table, unless you want to move a motion. I would suggest that we can deal with that--

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

I think the points frankly are valid that you don't want two Conservatives in a row. It looks like loading up. I'm content with that.

I am concerned, however, that effectively you've got 12 questions and the possibility of a third round is between nil and zero. Unless you drop the time towards the end of the second round so that there is a possibility of a third round, no third round will ever happen.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

I haven't had a problem in the past. I can tell you that. When I don't have more than 30 minutes of presentations at the front end, an hour and a half provides us more than enough time to do the three rounds.

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

As long as a Liberal leads off in the third round--that is probably as good as I can get.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Mr. Alexander.

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

Thanks, Chair.

I think we do need to be careful about language like “tyranny of the majority” this early when we're discussing routine motions. Let's also be precise with the use of words like “equality”. When the Liberal government had a majority there was not equal time given to all members.

[An hon. member]

There was.

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

There was not. I testified before many of those committees, and there were more Liberal members on the committees and they spoke more than the other members.

There is a principle of equality at the beginning and the end for the three parties. Quite frankly, we're persuaded by that.

The proposal I initially made would have had, I think, family hanging back with two Conservatives at the end. I fully intended to be one of those as often as possible, out of respect for the independence of this committee. But if our colleagues opposite prefer the subamendment, we can live with that. We would just like to be clear about exactly how much time and what order is being assigned to the three rounds.

But the sequencing of speakers that was outlined earlier strikes us as reasonable.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Madam Moore, the last comment to you.

[Christine Moore, NDP, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

I have to tell you that I am lost. This is moving very quickly. I think I understood, but I have to confess that perhaps I may not have.

The subamendment seems to suggest that three people will speak in the first round. I would like to understand. In the last meetings of this committee, it seemed that opposition people were allowed to speak in order of representation and then we went to the Conservative Party.

So I would like to understand why we are not following that logic of letting opposition members speak in the order of their representation and then moving to the Conservatives. That was the logic in the last Parliament, I see. I think that we could follow this order: NDP, Liberal Party and Conservative Party in the first and third rounds.

I would like things to be clear before we vote. I would like the proposal before us to be clear, because the order has changed a couple of dozen times. So can we please have it written out? At least let's just use a C, an N and an L. I will understand that. We don't need to have the letters C, N and L translated.

Thank you.

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

Point of order, Mr. Chairman.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

A point of order, Mr. Harris.

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

We seem to have reached a consensus here. I propose that we vote on the subamendment in principle, and that between now and Thursday we commit it to writing with its time so that it looks like what we have in the existing one except with the adjustments made, and that we consider it on Thursday.

The reason I suggest Thursday is that I think we need another meeting on Thursday, in any event, if we're going to finalize these and deal with the question that Mr. McKay raised in relation to the documentation that might be viewed at the clerk's office.

Secondly, I want to deal with our role as a committee under the Libya extension motion and the possibility of meetings over the summer to conduct our oversight requirements under that. We should discuss that, at least.

We may not need two hours on Thursday, but perhaps we could finalize the wording of this one between the parties and you, Mr. Chairman. Maybe you have a wording already.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

I have a wording already. Although previous motions are adopted, unless we move amendments or revisit them, right now they're set in stone. What we have in light right now is the first round: seven minutes each, NDP, Conservative, Liberal; second round, five minutes each. So the first round is, in principle, equality of parties. The second round is the equality of members, which is five minutes each for the remaining members: Conservative, NDP; Conservative, NDP; Conservative, NDP; Conservative, Conservative. And the third round will then go back to NDP, Liberal, Conservative. This is the way I have it.

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

Could I amend that to say that effectively the first question in the third round goes to the Liberals?