Evidence of meeting #3 for Official Languages in the 41st Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was third.
A recording is available from Parliament.
9:05 a.m.
NDP
9:05 a.m.
NDP
Dan Harris NDP Scarborough Southwest, ON
That gives the Conservatives 34 minutes of speaking time, the NDP 27 minutes, and the Liberals 12 minutes. I mention it just so everyone is clear.
9:05 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Michael Chong
Thank you.
(Subamendment negatived)
Mr. Gourde, you can move your subamendment as you proposed it, or we can go to debate on the amendment as originally moved by Mr. Bélanger.
Do you wish to move your subamendment?
9:05 a.m.
Conservative
Jacques Gourde Conservative Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, QC
I can move my amendment and repeat the speaking order, but if Mr. Galipeau has moved an amendment and he now wants to modify it or take the floor, that's okay with me. Out of respect for Mr. Galipeau, I won't stop us from discussing his proposal, which is already on the table.
9:05 a.m.
Conservative
Royal Galipeau Conservative Ottawa—Orléans, ON
Before I move on to my criteria, I want to know whether there is anything else left on the table. In my case, we're talking about the original motion.
9:05 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Michael Chong
Yes. There's your original motion and Mr. Bélanger's amendment.
9:05 a.m.
Conservative
Royal Galipeau Conservative Ottawa—Orléans, ON
We need to make amendments before we discuss the original motion.
9:05 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Michael Chong
Okay.
I will now read Mr. Bélanger's amendment.
Mauril Bélanger moved,— That the order of questions shall be as follows: for the first round, seven minutes be allocated in the following order: New Democratic Party, Liberal Party and Conservative Party; for the second round, five minutes be allocated in the following order: New Democratic Party, Conservative Party and Liberal Party; for the third round, five minutes be allocated in the following order: New Democratic Party, Conservative Party and Liberal Party; for the fourth round, five minutes be allocated in the following order: Conservative Party, New Democratic Party and Liberal Party.
Does anyone want to debate that amendment?
(Amendment negatived)
We are now back to the main motion.
9:10 a.m.
Liberal
Mauril Bélanger Liberal Ottawa—Vanier, ON
For form's sake, I would like to move an amendment to the agreement we arrived at during last week's discussions. We agreed on two rounds then. In the first round, questioners would have seven minutes in the following order: New Democrats, Conservatives, Liberals, Conservatives. We agreed last Tuesday that we would hold a second round, where questioners would have five minutes in the following order: New Democrats, Conservatives, New Democrats, Conservatives, Liberals, Conservatives, New Democrats and Conservatives. If there was a third round, we would start from the beginning, with five minutes per questioner.
I agreed to that because it was in keeping with two major principles. First, every party would speak in every round, as we have always done. Second, there was what the government party wanted to add, that all the members be able to speak. To honour that agreement, I formally move this amendment.
9:10 a.m.
Conservative
John Weston Conservative West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC
Thank you.
I am referring back to what Mr. Galipeau said. If my math is correct, seven minutes are allocated to your party in the first round. Therefore, you have a privileged position. You're assured of an opportunity to ask a question every time. Also, you have one-ninth of the total time, or 7 of the 63 minutes. That is more than what's usually proposed, since there are 11 people. I think that Mr. Galipeau's remarks are correct, and all three parties are represented. You would be assured of an opportunity to ask questions, and you would have more time to speak than if we calculated it based on the fact that there are 1 Liberal and 11 people. We have been discussing this for a long time, and I think it's time to adopt a fair proposal that's in keeping with all the principles we have discussed.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
9:10 a.m.
Liberal
Mauril Bélanger Liberal Ottawa—Vanier, ON
I would like to respond to Mr. Weston's comment. Mr. Chair, certain statements are incorrect. A committee's role is not only to ask questions, but also to ensure that the government is accountable. That's the role of a parliament. That reality is well reflected in question period, as the majority government has about 3 questions out of 40.
9:10 a.m.
Conservative
Jacques Gourde Conservative Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, QC
We need to have all the answers and a number of questions....
9:10 a.m.
Liberal
Mauril Bélanger Liberal Ottawa—Vanier, ON
When the minister responsible for official languages comes here, it's not unusual for him to be held accountable. That is the role of a parliament.
So we shouldn't say that a committee should be the exact reflection of Parliament when it comes to the allocation of speaking time, as that has never been the case.
I want to point out that, when there were four parties in this committee, the fourth party had the right to speak in all but one round. Mr. Godin, who was often the representative, and Mr. Julian, who replaced him from time to time, often spoke three or even four times. That was never an issue.
The Bloc Québécois was the third party. We shouldn't forget that too quickly, since it's part of our history. The Bloc Québécois members had the right to speak in every round, Mr. Weston. That was never questioned. I want to point out that the arrangement was the same when the Liberals had the majority in Parliament.
Whether I was part of a majority government or the official opposition, I have always stood up for the third and fourth parties in this committee. Therefore, it is based on those principles and that experience that I say that all three parties should be able to participate in every round.
This isn't a matter of how time is divided up and so on. It's a matter of Parliament's role. It's also a matter of tradition, of how we proceeded in the past.
If the government majority really wants to break that tradition, it will perhaps succeed; I acknowledge that. I won't keep insisting on this for the next seven meetings. I also want to work; I have shown that a number of times. I am trying to be reasonable. Others will decide whether or not I was successful in that.
However, Mr. Weston, in a parliament, certain basic principles must be protected and respected. There's an attempt here to set those principles aside. I will resist that. You will perhaps succeed at some point, but in the future, in other parliaments—because there will be a 42nd, a 43rd and so on—people will go back to read what was said, and they will be able to see how the principles have evolved and whether or not rights were respected.
So, Mr. Weston, when you make such statements, it goes against a parliamentary tradition, to an extent.
9:15 a.m.
Conservative
Guy Lauzon Conservative Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON
I just want to remind my colleague Mr. Bélanger that the members on this side are also members of Parliament. We also have the right to ask questions.
June 23rd, 2011 / 9:15 a.m.
Conservative
Costas Menegakis Conservative Richmond Hill, ON
I don't think it is proper to assume or to compare the way Parliament runs in the House of Commons to how we should operate in the committee.
There are 11 members in this committee. We are going to be hearing depositions from third parties coming in and we want the opportunity to participate in that process. You cannot compare that to question period in the House.
I think it's fair to go around twice. In two rounds, everybody has an opportunity to ask a question. Then we start again. I concur with Mr. Weston. Giving the opportunity to the Liberal Party to speak for seven minutes in the first round gives a little bit of an advantage there, but we concede that advantage.
With all due respect, I just don't see the logic of applying what happens in the House to what happens in the committee. We're here to represent all of us together as one collective body, one committee. I understand that we have party differences, but when we're questioning somebody who is coming in to see us, we should all have an opportunity to ask those questions.
That's my point.
9:15 a.m.
NDP
Dan Harris NDP Scarborough Southwest, ON
Well, I think this does give everybody the opportunity to speak. It does recognize the third party as getting an opportunity to speak in each round. I don't think I have a problem with that.
As for holding to parliamentary traditions, forget what happens in the House. The speaking time in this instance would give the Conservatives 34 minutes, the NDP 22 minutes, and the Liberals 12 minutes. The time for both opposition sides adds up to 34 minutes, so in terms of the speaking time, it would actually be equal on both sides. Nobody can say that's not fair, I think, and it does still recognize that everybody, should they so choose, would get the opportunity to question a witness. I certainly I have no problems with this amendment.
9:20 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Michael Chong
Thank you, Mr. Harris.
Is there any further debate on the amendment moved by Mr. Bélanger?
(Amendment negatived)
We're now back to the main motion moved by Mr. Galipeau.
9:20 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Michael Chong
No, Mr. Julian's amendment was defeated.
I will read the motion moved by Mr. Galipeau:
That, at the discretion of the chair, the witnesses from any one organization shall be allowed up to 10 minutes to make their opening statement. During the questioning of witnesses, there shall be allocated seven (7) minutes for the first round of questioning, and thereafter five (5) minutes shall be allocated to each questioner in the second and subsequent rounds of questioning.
That is the motion on the floor.
Is there any discussion or debate on this motion?
We'll have Mr. Galipeau, followed by Mr. Julian.