Natural Resources Committee on Feb. 5th, 2009

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Mr. Siksay.

[Bill Siksay, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Thank you.

I would be hard pressed to accept an amendment to cut down on the time available to a member of the NDP to question witnesses and participate in the discussion at the committee. Allocations have traditionally been made to parties and not to individual members. That can account for a long tradition in committees in how time is allocated for the questioning of witnesses. I don't necessarily buy the argument that it needs to be balanced according to individual members, but I think it needs to be balanced or related to party participation in Parliament.

I'd like to make an amendment that the proposal for round two be replaced in Mr. Anderson's motion to go to round two, round three, and round four, as the committee adopted in the last Parliament. Further, I think that arrangement served the committee well in the last Parliament, so I recommend sticking with the status quo and getting on with the work of the committee in that fashion.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

You've heard the proposed amendment, which in effect puts in place the time allocation as stated here on the sheet.

Mr. Anderson.

[David Anderson, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

I don't see how that's acceptable. We've had a considerable change in seating allocations in the House of Commons since the election, and this would completely put it out of whack.

On what I've suggested, the opposition ends up with 40 minutes of questioning compared to 27 minutes for the government. It's generous to the opposition. The NDP gets almost half as much as each of the other parties, the way we've set it up here. If you're talking about party allocation, the NDP is already being treated generously, if Mr. Siksay wants to look at it that way.

The previous time allocation was based on a completely different House of Commons. I don't think we can seriously look at leaving things the way they were.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Mr. Hiebert is next, and then Mr. Bains.

[Russ Hiebert, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale, BC]

I agree with the principle behind what Mr. Bigras said. He was appealing to this committee to look for fairness, and I think that is something we should try to adopt.

The concept of every member having an opportunity to speak once, before any member is given a second opportunity, is what we're striving for. Unfortunately, Mr. Siksay's amendment would actually give a disproportionate voice to all the opposition members. Under his proposal, three Liberals would have the opportunity to speak five times in total, yet five Conservatives would only have the opportunity to speak four times. That's what's really changing here.

What Mr. Anderson is proposing gives even more weight to what the opposition has to say, because under his proposal the opposition would have six slots to speak before everything repeats itself, versus only five slots for the government. So if you look at what is being proposed, the opposition would be given more time than the government.

If the point Mr. Bains is trying to make is that we would never get to the fourth round, that's all the more evidence that Conservative members would be shortchanged and prevented from having the opportunity to speak, while an NDP member would have the opportunity to speak twice.

So let's pursue the principle of fairness that Mr. Bigras is proposing and try to find a solution that treats people equally, as opposed to providing a disproportionate voice to some members or some parties.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Thank you, Mr. Hiebert.

Mr. Bains.

[Navdeep Bains, Liberal, Mississauga—Brampton South, ON]

I'd like to call for the vote.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

As long as there are people who want to speak, I'm certainly going to hear them.

Madame Brunelle.

[Paule Brunelle, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

I would like to come back to the work that the committee has to do. We have to understand that our work is not Question Period. In a non-partisan way, the committee is supposed to bring up new topics and to explore them in more depth. The same goes for bills that the government itself has submitted to the committee so that amendments can be made and different ways of presenting things can be tried.

The governing party has every opportunity to express its point of view outside committee work, because its point of view prevails from the outset. So we must, absolutely, have the opinion of all parties. That is why I will vote against Mr. Anderson's amendment; the way in which time was allocated previously suits me perfectly, it worked well. It allowed us to do things better, to have interesting committee reports and to improve bills.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Mr. Anderson actually made a motion; he didn't move an amendment. Mr. Siksay moved an amendment, which is what we're discussing now.

Mr. Anderson.

[David Anderson, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

I will make a suggested amendment if Mr. Siksay will consider it. If not, I think we'll be here quite a while discussing our possibilities.

It is that we add the NDP to the end of the list I presented before we start the rounds again. That would put them ahead of where they were previously.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

We have a subamendment that would add the NDP to the end of the list, as proposed by Mr. Anderson in his motion.

Mr. Anderson, is that correct?

[David Anderson, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Yes, and that would move Mr. Siksay up two positions from where he'd be in his own proposal.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

You've heard Mr. Anderson's comments and his debate. We'll have to go to a vote on the amendment first. Then if he would like to propose another amendment he can do that, because it just doesn't work the way it's been laid out here.

[David Anderson, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

I'm not sure if I'm going to be able to make the amendment if this one passes, because mine goes back to what I had to say before.

[Russ Hiebert, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale, BC]

That's true.

[David Anderson, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

If this passes, you have an order. I'm interested in doing what we did and putting the NDP at the end of it. If the opposition votes down Mr. Siksay's amendment, he will benefit from this himself. He'll gain two spots on the round. He can come over here to take a look if he wants.

[Russ Hiebert, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale, BC]

What Mr. Siksay is proposing would give you guys 10 speaking spots and would give Conservatives four speaking spots. So automatically one of our guys would always--

[Navdeep Bains, Liberal, Mississauga—Brampton South, ON]

If you want to switch sides, I'm okay with that.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Navdeep Bains, Liberal, Mississauga—Brampton South, ON]

Sorry, Russ.

[Russ Hiebert, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale, BC]

You're being unreasonable.

[Navdeep Bains, Liberal, Mississauga—Brampton South, ON]

I'm following the lead of my fearless leader here, Mr. Geoff. You negotiate with Geoff here. Geoff's the lead for us. When Geoff says jump, I ask how high.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

After discussion with the clerks, I have decided that we have to deal with the amendment first. Is there any further discussion on the amendment?

Mr. Trost, Mr. Bains, and Mr. Siksay.