Official Languages Committee on June 23rd, 2011

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

We have a subamendment to Mr. Bélanger's amendment. It is that the second round would be New Democratic Party, Conservative, New Democratic Party, Conservative, New Democratic Party, Conservative, Liberal, Conservative.

Actually, the clerk has pointed out correctly that I should rule the subamendment out of order, because it's not actually modifying the amendment. Mr. Bélanger's amendment was simply to add the Liberal Party to the list. You're not actually modifying that amendment, so I'm going to reject that subamendment. If you wish to reword your subamendment, I will allow it.

Frankly, what I would do is--

I move that we finish the debate on Mr. Bélanger's amendment. Then, you could move another amendment.

Is there any further debate on Mr. Bélanger's amendment?

Seeing none, I'll call the question.

All those in favour of Mr. Bélanger's amendment?

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

Could we have a recorded division, please?

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Yes, you may.

We're going to go to a formal recorded division. I'm going to hand the floor over to the clerk of the committee to record the vote.

Mr. Clerk, you have the floor.

(Amendment negatived: nays, 6; yeas, 5)

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Thank you, Mr. Clerk.

Mr. Aubin, you may now move your amendment.

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

I still move that the second round start with the New Democratic Party and that the Conservatives' two successive speaking opportunities occur at the end of the second round rather than between the first and second rounds.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

So, the first round....

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

The first round would follow this order: New Democrats, Conservatives, Liberals and Conservatives.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

And the second round?

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

The order would be as follows: New Democrats, Conservatives, New Democrats, Conservatives, New Democrats, Conservatives and Conservatives.

[An hon. member]

The Liberals would not speak?

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

The amendment has just been negatived, has it not?

[An hon. member]

No, no, they can be included.

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Really? Okay then. They can be included between the Conservatives' two opportunities to speak at the end.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

We're all on the same page.

Go ahead, Mr. Julian.

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

Mr. Chair, we can put an end to this entire discussion on speaking order by accepting Mr. Aubin's amendment. We have an hour left in this meeting. Personally, I think discussing the same thing for three meetings in a row is a problem.

The government side proposed that all its members have an opportunity to ask questions. That is covered in Mr. Aubin's motion. The Liberal Party said this committee had a principle of giving the third and fourth parties at least a second turn. That is established. The only change Mr. Aubin is proposing is that the NDP, the official opposition party, begin the second round.

I think Mr. Galipeau's original proposal was a very good one, but there is obviously a flaw. There are 26 minutes between the first time and the second time the official opposition gets the floor. So, for a half-hour, while witnesses are being questioned, the official opposition does not get a chance to speak. It is a matter of fairness. I think everyone would agree that making the official opposition wait a half-hour to take the floor after its first opportunity to speak takes away from the normal exchange of ideas that should take place between the official opposition and the government side.

I realize that this is not ideal for anyone. There are still 21 minutes during which the NDP, the official opposition, cannot speak. But rather than discuss this for a fourth meeting or waiting for the fall to set a schedule, we all need to make some concessions. We all need to accept a proposal that may not suit every single one of our needs but that is still a very good compromise. It is a compromise that is in keeping with Canadian tradition.

I am asking all the members at this table to support what is reasonable and what represents a good compromise, even though I am not 100% satisfied. I think Mr. Aubin put forward a proposal that accommodates everyone.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Thank you, Mr. Aubin.

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

I just wanted to flesh out my thought a bit. The motion would allow for a more diverse exchange of viewpoints during the questioning of witnesses, and that would help give everyone a fuller picture of the issue in hand.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Thank you.

Mr. Bélanger, go ahead.

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

Mr. Chair, the matter of alternating turns so as not to give two members of the same party consecutive opportunities to speak was raised last week by Mr. Godin. I think everyone supported that principle.

I would also point out that the reason we are having a third meeting on this same topic is that, last Tuesday, the government side introduced a motion to adjourn. And that is why we are now in our third meeting.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Thank you.

Mr. Julian, go ahead.

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

We did not get an answer from the government side on this issue. It would be a good idea to know whether the government members are prepared to accept this....

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

You understand that I cannot compel them to provide an answer.

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

That is true, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

The same goes for the House of Commons.

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

You are always so wise.

We have all proposed solutions that did exactly what the members of the government wanted. I see no point in having a half-hour when the official opposition is out of the debate. I have never seen that in any committee. To date, I have sat on five different committees. Setting the rules has been the toughest in this committee. In all the other committees, we were able to find some common ground. I find it a bit troubling that we are not all making some concessions. Mr. Bélanger is getting a lot less than he asked for, but he still got a second opportunity to speak, and that principle is being upheld. We, however, are missing from the debate, even with Mr. Aubin's motion, which silences us for more than 20 minutes. Every government member has the right to speak. We haven't been able to reach a compromise, but I think Mr. Aubin has managed to do just that.