Public Accounts Committee on Feb. 16th, 2016

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Can I just mention, Chair—

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Okay, let's have some order first. Let's come back. If you want to get on the speaking list here, put your hand up and then we'll try to be orderly.

Mr. Christopherson, you're speaking to the motion.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Yes, of course. What else would I speak to?

Just in the interest of full disclosure, so we understand, the Conservatives at PROC, the official opposition, were prepared to allow the Liberals to have the lead-off, which is not usual, even though it was here at this committee last time—that was another deal made.

But at PROC, there was a switch so that the Liberals led off the witnesses when normally it's the opposition. In doing so, the Liberals then agreed to break up the run that they had, so Madame Mendès' motion that we adopt PROC will split up the Liberal back-to-back, seven-seven. Actually it became seven and six at PROC and the government agreed to let that back-to-back go in exchange for having the lead question, which they did.

That's what's here and that's why it's here. That's full disclosure.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

There is no Liberal back-to-back.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Not in this proposal, no, but the government does get the lead. That is a step away from the norm, but it was part of the deal.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Again, we're in the committee, and this committee makes the decisions.

Mr. Poilievre, did you want to speak to the motion as amended?

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

Yes, I'd like to offer a friendly amendment to it, which is to move to the more traditional opening protocol. I would move that the official opposition have the first sequence of questioning and that this be the only change we make to the proceedings and House affairs procedure. Was the PROC seven minutes?

[A voice]

Yes.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

So we would have—

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Okay, but are we dealing with two amendments?

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

This would be an amendment to Ms. Mendès' motion. I don't want to be presumptuous, but I think that Mr. Christopherson's motion would be withdrawn if Ms. Mendès' motion went ahead, so we're really dealing with one motion.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

I think that right now there's unanimous support for the PROC template, and Mr. Poilievre now wants to make an amendment to that. I think that's where we are.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

You would want it to be as a friendly amendment, and if not, it would just be an amendment.

[Alexandra Mendes, Liberal, Brossard—Saint-Lambert, QC]

If I may, Mr. Chair, we're not ready to accept that. We are absolutely ready to accept the PROC formula and the three minutes at the second round for the NDP, which would make a total of 51 minutes, but we are not ready to change the order of questions.

That is what was adopted at PROC. Everybody agreed on it at PROC, so that's what we are ready to accept.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

In that case, Mr. Poilievre, we can proceed with the vote, or you can just withdraw your amendment. You may want to speak to whether or not you want to move right into the vote.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

Well, if I could speak to my proposed amendment, personally I've never been on a committee where the government led questioning. In 12 years in Parliament, it's just never happened.

[Alexandra Mendes, Liberal, Brossard—Saint-Lambert, QC]

When the chair is opposition, normally that's what happens.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

I guess I'm trying to think back to my time in public accounts. It was a long time ago. I'd have to look back at those meetings. In all the other policy-related committees, questioning is typically led by the opposition. That is my experience.

It wouldn't make a big difference to the governing party, because Liberals would get the same number of minutes of questioning as they would under the existing PROC proposal. The only difference is that the opening questioning would be from the official opposition, as is traditionally the case with most committees.

It's not a big change, but I think it's fair-minded, and by far the largest share of questioning minutes would go to the governing caucus, so I would ask that the government consider that approach. It's a very minor modification from the PROC proposal, but one that I think puts us more in line with committee procedure across the various standing committees.

That's my amendment.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Is there any other discussion?

Madam Shanahan.

[Brenda Shanahan, Liberal, Châteauguay—Lacolle, QC]

You know, I'm all for goodwill and good working relationships and so on, but I think we have come a long way from my original motion. I want to support the motion from my colleague, Alexandra Mendès, as it stands. I think it's more than generous, and it more than shows the goodwill of the governing side.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

All right.

Mr. Poilievre, do you want to vote on the amendment, or do you want to withdraw your amendment?

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

I'm not suggesting that the government is acting in bad faith here. I think the PROC protocol is an improvement over the original proposal. It's just that traditionally, the opposition does lead questioning. That is in recognition of the fact that the House of Commons is a place where governments in general are held to account and that's why the official opposition normally leads questioning on most committees. It doesn't upset the number of minutes each party is going to be eligible to receive; it simply changes the order in which they receive them.

I know that government members will want to protect their speaking time—I have no problem with that—understandably so. But the tone and tenure of a committee is set by the opening round of questioning, and if the purpose of such committees is to hold government to account, then I think we should allow the official opposition to open the questioning. As I said, that is the normal practice across standing committees, and as Mr. Christopherson stated earlier, I think it would be a show of good faith and would be consistent with the government's stated desire to improve transparency and accountability if they would allow my amendment to stand.

I think, by some of their facial expressions, some of them are being slowly convinced, though not entirely yet.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

Mr. Chair, I think they're suggesting that my skill at reading body language is not what it should be.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Yes, I think maybe you're right.

Mr. Godin.