Evidence of meeting #26 for National Defence in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was information.
A recording is available from Parliament.
12:50 p.m.
Liberal
Mark Gerretsen Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON
Mr. Bezan, would this have eliminated the opportunity for Mr. McKay to speak when Ms. Romanado gave her time to him?
12:50 p.m.
Conservative
James Bezan Conservative Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB
Yes, it would have today, if this wasn't....
It wasn't a decision from our side of the House to say that parliamentary secretaries would not be interfering in committees anymore—
12:50 p.m.
Liberal
Mark Gerretsen Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON
Is your party bringing this forward to every committee?
12:50 p.m.
Conservative
James Bezan Conservative Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB
No, this is my motion.
What I witness here is that Mr. McKay is fully participating in committee, and I didn't think that was the intent or the will of the Liberal Party.
12:50 p.m.
Conservative
James Bezan Conservative Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB
I can tell you that I understand other committees are quite happy to have parliamentary secretaries. They can ask them questions and have them participate because of the relationship that's been cultivated, but that doesn't seem to happen at this committee.
12:50 p.m.
Liberal
Mark Gerretsen Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON
In the other committee that I'm on, the environment committee, Ms. May comes to the committee from time to time and wants to participate. She basically has to get somebody to share their time, and I don't particularly see a problem with that. What does it really matter if Mr. McKay asks the questions, or if he gives the questions to Ms. Romanado to ask?
If she wants to yield her time to somebody else who is another member of Parliament, is that not in the best interests of democracy if that's what she wants to do?
12:50 p.m.
Conservative
James Bezan Conservative Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB
I'm just putting this forward for clarification and certainty as to the Liberal promise, but that was an anomaly today that you actually shared time. Usually it's just been directed from the front that Mr. McKay will speak—
12:50 p.m.
Liberal
12:50 p.m.
Conservative
James Bezan Conservative Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB
—which is within the rules. I understand that, but it hasn't been the normal practice at this committee. This just adds more clarification on how the committee functions.
12:55 p.m.
Liberal
12:55 p.m.
Liberal
Sherry Romanado Liberal Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne, QC
If I choose to share my time with another member, I think that is my prerogative. If I'm giving up my slot, I'm giving up my slot. I understand that the NDP often have a colleague who will come and participate in the meeting who is not an official member, but will cede their time to another member. I'm not quite sure what the beef is. Quite frankly, we've had other members share their time, and as my colleague Mr. Gerretsen mentioned, I think that's my prerogative.
12:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Stephen Fuhr
I think it's more specifically with regard to parliamentary secretaries.
Mr. Paul-Hus.
12:55 p.m.
Conservative
Pierre Paul-Hus Conservative Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC
As my colleague James Bezan mentioned, that intention does not come from us; the request comes from the Prime Minister.
The first goal is for the parliamentary secretary and the Minister of National Defence to work closely together.
From the outset, this committee has had a lot of difficulty and has not been able to ensure our sovereignty as a committee or do what we should be doing, autonomously.
At present, for some things, we are more in a situation of interference from the Minister and the parliamentary secretary, at the request of the Prime Minister. He is the one who asked that the procedure be changed, not us.
We simply want to apply the procedure so the committee can function, myself included. I occasionally attend meetings of other committees, and it is totally different. I would like us to be able to have a more effective way of working for everyone.
The motions we are making are not aggressive. They are motions to govern the functioning of the committee; we are trying to function.
12:55 p.m.
Liberal
Sven Spengemann Liberal Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON
Mr. Chair, there would only be two reasons for Mr. Bezan to want to exclude the parliamentary secretary. One is that it somehow infringes on the time allocation, and the other is that he doesn't want to hear his view.
With respect to interference with the committee's work, I don't believe that having the parliamentary secretary, who has experience in the sector, ask a question would constitute interference with the committee.
In terms of time allocation, it's quite clear, in fact, Mr. Chair, you've been extremely generous in the third round. Usually you've given everybody five minutes. If anything, the opposition has gained time allocation in this committee setting. There's no peril at all to somebody not getting in their fair share of time, so I don't see the rationale for excluding prima facie the parliamentary secretary in his capacity as somebody who knows about defence issues.
12:55 p.m.
Conservative
James Bezan Conservative Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB
Just in rebuttal to that, if we had four witnesses at the end of the table, we'd be using the entire two hours and we'd only get through our scheduled rounds. That's just by adding an extra 30 minutes at the head of the table with statements. That happened quite often in the past at this committee as well as at other committees when we had four witnesses appear at one time. Today was an anomaly. We only had one.
The second part is that this is definitely only targeted toward the parliamentary secretary, not other members. If Nathaniel Erskine-Smith or Robert-Falcon Ouellette wanted to attend, I'd be more than happy and may even share my time with those two stand-up individuals. This would not prevent the NDP from sharing their time with one of their colleagues or if Elizabeth May or a Bloc member wanted to attend and participate and we felt that was definitely in line with the witnesses we had that day, I wouldn't be at all opposed to that.
I'm not trying to infringe upon Ms. Romanado's rights to share her time. This is about honouring the Liberal promise of removing the interference of parliamentary secretaries, although we know they still work behind the scenes. At the same time, we also know that Mr. McKay, as parliamentary secretary, is privileged to receive much more detailed briefings than what we're getting here from government officials. It's more important to hear from people who don't have that opportunity to question these witnesses rather than Mr. McKay.
12:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Stephen Fuhr
I have Ms. Gallant and Mr. Fisher, and then we'll check our clock.
Ms. Gallant, the floor is yours.
12:55 p.m.
Conservative
Cheryl Gallant Conservative Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON
I just want to make sure I understood Ms. Romanado correctly in that her personal prerogative trumps the Prime Minister's mandate letters to the ministers and campaign promises. That's what the intent of Mr. Bezan's motion is, to uphold the campaign promise as well as what's in the mandate.
1 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Stephen Fuhr
I'll let Ms. Romanado respond, and then I'll give the floor to Mr. Fisher after she responds to Ms. Gallant.
1 p.m.
Liberal
Sherry Romanado Liberal Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne, QC
I'd be happy to clarify. My response was that I should be allowed to share my time as, I understand in the last round of questioning, time was shared on the other side. Please don't take my intent as anything but what it was.
1 p.m.
Liberal
Darren Fisher Liberal Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
The motion has parliamentary secretaries, plural. Does this have anything to do with Parliamentary Secretary Alleslev who participated one day? It is plural and it doesn't just speak to one parliamentary secretary.