Evidence of meeting #1 for Transport, Infrastructure and Communities in the 39th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was jean.
Conservative
Steven Blaney Conservative Lévis—Bellechasse, QC
Each party would be allocated seven minutes, following which everyone would have five minutes.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
It was originally suggested it be five minutes--I've made the change here--as opposed to seven.
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
The reason I said five instead of seven is because if it were seven minutes the first time around, there wouldn't be enough time in the whole to divide any time afterwards among the parties. I did a calculation on this last time, an analysis--I wish I had brought it today. It ended up that a significant amount of time was given to the NDP member at the last sitting, and many of the people--even Bloc members, and Conservatives for certain--didn't receive an opportunity to ask any relevant questions.
I'm not stuck on five minutes or seven minutes. That does not matter to me. If you want to discuss it, I'm prepared to accept a friendly amendment on that. My point is that each person present at the committee should have the same amount of time to start, so they can ask at least one or two questions to the witnesses. That is, seven minutes, five minutes....
Bloc
Mario Laframboise Bloc Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC
I have a problem with that arrangement. It flies in the face of tradition. Each party has a chance to ask questions during the first round. I don't see a problem giving each questioner a turn during the second round, but the first is for each party. It was my understanding that the motion introduced by Mr. Jean was aimed at recognizing each party during the first round, and each questioner during the second round. I wouldn't have a problem with that format.
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
If my friend is making a friendly amendment, I would accept a friendly amendment on that basis.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
So the amendment is basically giving seven minutes, as opposed to five minutes, to each party for the first round of questions.
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
Yes, and after that each member would get five minutes, I suppose.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC
What would be the order of that? Would we have five Conservatives going first, and then four Liberals?
NDP
Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC
But this is not a small detail. When we have witnesses, normally we're looking at a 30- to 45-minute process. If we're lining this up in a way that other committees have clearly chosen not to take, I think the parliamentary precedent is quite significant, to say the least.
We're setting it up so that we go through each caucus, and it's not clear what the orders are. Then we're setting up a situation where there is no more equality in terms of parties around this table. I can't stress enough that other committees have looked at this question and have decided to continue with the process of ensuring that parties have a voice around the table.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
Experience has been that in all committees it's been on an alternating basis, but I would take direction from the committee.
Mr. Scott.
Liberal
Andy Scott Liberal Fredericton, NB
The reality is that a member of Parliament who happens to be the fifth person to speak on the government side or the official opposition side has every bit as much right to speak as a member of Parliament in this committee who's speaking for the third time--who basically benefits from the fact that there's only one of them.
We're here first and foremost as members of Parliament--this is a parliamentary committee. Once the members of Parliament have all had the opportunity to represent the interests of their constituents, then I think we can fall into the partisan party approach to this.
But in reality, this isn't just about opposition. Very often on the government side, particularly in a majority government, members would sit here all day and never get to speak, and they were elected with the same mandate as everybody else.
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
I can't express how pleased I am that Mr. Scott would take that position. Quite frankly, Mr. Julian, I'm surprised that as a party that believes in proportional representation, you wouldn't feel that this would be the fairest method for everybody's constituents to be heard.
But there's a motion on the floor, if there's any more discussion.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC
The motion on the floor doesn't have the speaking orders, so Mr. Jean, with respect, would this go through the five Conservative members after the first round of questions? We have no idea. We have no idea what the order would be. For the committee to take a vote on something without having any idea of the order would be a mistake.
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
I'd be more than happy to hear a friendly amendment from a friend. I will take note that the allocation of time for questioning in the very first motion is not set out, as far as whether it would alternate as well. But I think alternating is the fairest and most practical approach, so I would take a friendly amendment on that, Mr. Julian.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC
Would you agree to Conservative, Liberal, Bloc, NDP members for the second round? That's by party. In the second round for members we go Conservative, Liberal, Bloc, NDP, and then we go to members who have not yet spoken, Conservative, Liberal, Bloc, in that way.
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
The very mention of the issue is that each person here get one opportunity. The first round would be considered one round. So that person would receive seven minutes. The first person would from each party, one person. Then the next subsequent person would be a different person who would speak, and it would go around to that person. Then when that allocation of time was done it would go to the different parties. I would suggest firstly the Bloc, then the NDP. That would be up to the chair. I see it's not been covered before in any allocation of questioning, but I'm more than happy with that proposal.