Official Languages Committee on June 16th, 2011

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

The clerk doesn't know the answer right now, but he will find the information for the committee.

Mr. Weston.

[John Weston, Conservative, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

About what Mr. Bélanger said, I think there's a balance to maintain between the two issues. There is the representation of all the parties within our committee's procedures, but there is also the problem of the members' morale. If they don't have enough of an opportunity to speak, they'll be less and less interested in participating on the committee. I don't have the answer, but like many other colleagues, I see clearly that participation is what is going to motivate me to continue.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Thank you, Mr. Weston.

Mr. Julian, et puis, Monsieur Gourde.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Bélanger's reaction makes me a little sad. What we just proposed would allow him to speak a second time in the third round, which was not the case before. It also means that he would be in the third position on the list. Actually, it's an improvement over what Mr. Galipeau proposed initially.

I think that Mr. Bélanger is well aware of the fact that we are in the process of improving his situation. If he is proposing that time be taken from the NDP and given to the Liberal Party, clearly the answer will be no. We are not going to tell our members to hush up to give more time to the third party, that's for sure.

A proposal was made that gives the Liberal Party more representation than before, but there has to be a consensus within the committee. I think Mr. Bélanger is aware of that. I didn't understand his intervention. What the NDP just proposed is clearly better than what was proposed by the government party.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Mr. Gourde.

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, QC]

Mr. Chair, we have on the table a proposal from Mr. Galipeau and an amendment from Mr. Julian. I think that Mr. Bélanger needs to tell us which of these two options seems the most interesting to him. I think that Mr. Galipeau's proposal would let him have seven minutes to speak following the first round, which may be very favourable. In fact, very often we don't get to the end of the second round when there are two witnesses. When we are hearing new witnesses, we start the first round again. Under the circumstances, I find that Mr. Galipeau's proposal favours Mr. Bélanger. We are in favour of it. I am going to vote in favour of Mr. Galipeau's proposal, without amendment.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Thank you, Mr. Gourde.

Mr. Bélanger.

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

I'll respond to Mr. Weston's comment.

Mr. Weston and Mr. Gourde might be right. But sometimes all the rounds are monopolized by the parliamentary secretary. Our motion doesn't guarantee that every member is going to be able to speak. As I said, Mr. Gourde seems to want to share the speaking time, but sometimes another parliamentary secretary basically uses all the time and doesn't let the other members speak. I want you to know that it doesn't depend on how it's done; it depends on the parliamentary secretary.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Is there any further debate on this amendment by Mr. Julian?

Seeing none, I'll call the question on the amendment by Mr. Julian on the order of questioning, which, just to reiterate, is New Democrat, Conservative, Liberal, Conservative for round one; for round two it's New Democrat, Conservative, New Democrat, Conservative, New Democrat, Conservative, Conservative. So we're voting on that amendment to the main motion.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Chair, in the third round, five-minute interventions are going to be allocated in the same order as in the first round: NDP, Conservative Party, Liberal Party, Conservative Party.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

That's right. So the third round would be New Democrat, Conservative, Liberal, Conservative, which would be five minutes rather than seven minutes.

(Amendment negatived)

Mr. Julian, just to clarify, we're back to the motion as moved by Monsieur Galipeau, which did not include the list of parties. It just concerned up to 10 minutes for the witnesses, seven minutes for round one, and five minutes for round two.

Mr. Julian, you have the floor.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Chair, I would like to suggest that we adjourn for a minute. I think that we are on the same wavelength. We might just need a little bit of discussion. It would be better than continuing to talk about it at this table because it would take more time.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

I'm not going to adjourn; I'm going to suspend if I'm going to do anything. Is it the will of the committee to suspend for five minutes?

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, QC]

There's another meeting and we need to leave. There's no time.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Still, we're going to have to take a few minutes.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Mr. Julian, I don't have a consensus to suspend. We can continue this discussion. It's your right to have the floor.

Mr. Bélanger.

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

Mr. Chair, for form's sake, I am going to propose an amendment. I suggest that we do what we did in the past and, in the first seven-minute round, the order should be: New Democrats, Liberals, Conservatives.

In the second five-minute round, the order should be: New Democrats, Conservatives, Liberals.

In the third five-minute round, the order should be: New Democrats, Conservatives, Liberals.

In the fourth five-minute round, the order should be: Conservatives, New Democrats, Liberals.

This is how it was in the past. I am going to propose it for form's sake, Mr. Chair. A proposal doesn't need to be supported to be considered. We'll make everyone vote on it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

We have an amendment to the main motion on the floor. Is there any debate?

Mr. Julian.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

We are going to have to take the same amount time that suspending for a few minutes would have taken. Actually, it's clear that we'll continue to find configurations that work.

I am a little disappointed that the government did not vote earlier as it had indicated, while it had accepted the process. Now, we are presenting an option that, as Mr. Bélanger rightly said, is closer to what it was when there was a minority government. Actually, it gives the Liberal Party's only member four turns. The four NDP members will be able to speak if we have four rounds. The Conservatives will be entitled to four rounds for their six members.

It's favourable for the Liberal Party. I don't think that we can accept this amendment because the Conservative members won't have the opportunity to ask questions. One principle is important: there needs to be a balance. It's difficult in this case, but we are still looking for a format. That's why I suggested that we suspend a few minutes ago. I think we're going to spend some time discussing this second format, which has advantages and disadvantages. It will be easier to resolve these issues the way we usually do, with a brief discussion around the table. Mr. Bélanger's proposal contains some major aspects, but it contains some gaps as well. We are still looking for something fair and that requires the committee to be involved.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

I have an answer for the committee. Prior to 2004, when there was a majority government, this committee was a joint committee of the Senate and the House of Commons.

We are talking about the rules of another committee in a majority government, prior to 2004.

The chair allocated seven minutes to the first questioner of each party and thereafter three minutes to each subsequent questioner, alternating between the government and opposition parties.

That's your answer.

[Royal Galipeau, Conservative, Ottawa—Orléans, ON]

Would opposition parties ask questions in succession or in alternating order?

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

They alternated with the government party.

I'll read it in English: at the discretion of the chair, seven minutes for the first questioner of each party and thereafter three minutes to each subsequent questioner, alternating between the government and opposition parties.

That's your answer.

[Royal Galipeau, Conservative, Ottawa—Orléans, ON]

That's what I suggested.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

We're now going to go to Monsieur Bélanger.

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

Mr. Chair, I had two thoughts while listening to Mr. Julian.

When we are debating a motion in the House, there are rounds, but all the recognized parties in the House take turns in asking questions and commenting. Naturally, the members of a majority party don't all get to speak. The same goes for all the parties because there aren't enough rounds, or the debates are not long enough for everyone to speak. Regardless, the principle is that all the parties should have the floor in each round.

Regarding my suggestion, I find it interesting that my colleague Mr. Julian considers that the Liberals have too many opportunities to speak. However, he was not against that arrangement when the New Democrats often had only one representative, Mr. Godin, on the committee. Mr. Godin had the floor in all but one round. If Mr. Julian were true to himself and his principles, he would agree that the approach that applied to the New Democrats at that time should apply to us now.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.