Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I think if anybody were to read the transcripts, or if there were anybody watching if this were televised, they would look at the situation and they'd say to themselves, “Hmm, there are six opposition MPs from different parties and there are five government MPs. Why wouldn't they allocate the time appropriately?” Six on one side would get 55% of the time and five on the other side would get 45% of the time. That would be a reasonable way of approaching this.
What the opposition is now proposing is that they get 67% of the time and the government get one-third of the time. That's two-thirds to one-third. That doesn't make common sense.
Things have changed. It may have been more appropriate under the last Parliament when the numbers sitting around the table were a little bit different, but to pretend that hasn't changed and that you want to keep the same amount of time you had before now.... It's not the same thing over again. It's dramatically different. It's giving a significant increase to the amount of time that opposition members have to ask questions of witnesses, to be a part of the discussion.
On our side we're trying to be reasonable. We're proposing solutions. We're proposing compromises that even still favour the opposition members. The earlier amendment that was put forward by Mr. Siksay, which was perfectly reasonable, still gave them 41 minutes to 27 minutes, which is by my calculations still about 60% versus 40% of the time. They're still getting much more than they would normally be due, simply based on their numbers sitting at the table. It's almost as though they're at the table and they're trying to grab more than they deserve, and I think that's not reasonable.
We're back in Parliament. We're trying to work together. We're trying to show Canadians that we're able to cooperate and to do so in a reasonable fashion. I think if you brought this question to a class of elementary students, they would do the math that they have been taught and they would come to the same conclusion that we're proposing or that has been proposed, even though it's more generous to the opposition.
Instead of--dare I say the word--being a little bit greedy, and trying to have it all or increase their influence, why don't we all put a little bit of water in our wine and come to a compromise that reflects reality a little bit more than what's being proposed?
Even if you were to look at the numbers in the House of Commons and look outside of the current numbers at the committee here, there are 143 government members and there are 164, minus the Speaker, opposition members. What's the proportion there? Well, it's 47% to the government and 53% to the opposition--nearly 50-50. That's not what they're asking for. They're asking for two-thirds to one-third. If you add up the time, they're talking about 56 minutes versus 27 minutes, twice as much time versus half the amount of time. It's simply unfair and unreasonable.
What was proposed in the motion put forward by Mr. Siksay of 41 minutes to the opposition and 27 minutes to the government gave everybody a chance to speak. It treated all members equally, and it gave the opposition members an advantage. We're willing to do that. We're willing to set aside our rightful allocation in favour of the spirit of cooperation. I genuinely hope that some reasonable heads can prevail in this discussion; otherwise it's going to perpetuate a great deal of dissatisfaction and discomfort at this committee because certain people will be marginalized.
Canadians have given us a mandate and said, “This is the allocation of seats we want. This is the amount of time and influence people should have. People should not be marginalized. People should have a chance to have their voices heard.”
The opposition parties love to speak for the minority. Well, this is the case here.
