Mr. Chair, it will be no surprise to you that I'm speaking against the motion.
When we had our initial discussions setting up the transport committee, we had some discussions about this area, but then Mr. Laframboise offered a compromise that I think has worked very effectively up until now. We have good balance between party representation; we have good balance with individual members getting on for questioning, which is extremely important.
That has worked well over the last few weeks, so I'm a bit perplexed as to the insistence of the parliamentary secretary in continuing to bring this issue up. What we've had is a system that has worked well. We've had a system that guarantees one supplementary question for each of the opposition parties. Over the first two rounds that gives each of the opposition parties a chance to raise the issue, and then to come back to issues that may have come up in the first round of questioning.
The proposal Mr. Jean is putting forward would actually do two things. In the case of one party, the NDP, it eliminates any possibility of a supplementary question, which is a broad parliamentary tradition dating back centuries. The fact is we have supplementary questions in parliamentary tradition because issues come up from the initial questioning that we need to pursue. That's why the principle of a supplementary question is extremely important.
In the proposal from Mr. Jean we also have a backloading of government members, which I feel is completely inappropriate. In fact, after the first six speakers, two-thirds of those who speak in the remaining time would be Conservative members. I don't feel it's useful for the opposition to have what is, in effect, a back end dominated by government members.
I take my responsibility as an opposition member very seriously. I understand the role of government. The role of government, in the end, is often to make decisions that are important.
But the input of opposition members is extremely important. The input of each of the opposition members here is extremely important. That's why I believe that our current structure, which allows each of the members to intervene but also preserves that principle of supplementary questions and allows us to do our work as opposition members, is the best route to go.
I am a member of Parliament, but I'm also representing the nearly 20% of the population who voted NDP in the last election, and of course that means I am here as a representative of my party. To move from the current structure, which gives me that supplementary, to a structure in which I get one question out of 12 does a disservice both to the opposition members and to those folks across the country who voted NDP, even if we don't necessarily have the same number of members in the House.
We have a current structure that has worked well. It provides one supplementary question for each party and allows that alternation between Liberal and Conservative members once we go through those supplementary questions; every member gets a chance to intervene, and there is no backweighting of government members. The Liberals and Conservatives alternate until everyone has finished speaking.
This proposal would backweight it so that it is almost exclusively government members in the back end; two-thirds would be government members intervening and questioning witnesses. For all those reasons, I think our current structure is the route to go. It has worked well. It allows the collaboration we need in this committee.
I think we have a very talented committee composed of very dedicated committee members, and we found that balance when Mr. Laframboise moved his motion at that initial meeting. Why would we throw out that balance for something that in effect allows a greater concentration of government members to speak and eliminates the right to supplementary questions for at least one of the opposition parties? For those reasons I oppose the motion.