Transport Committee on Nov. 15th, 2007

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

I am in favour of this suggestion, given that the committee includes not only transport now, but also infrastructure and communities. It is therefore important that the parliamentary secretary be able to tell us about the department's approach, particularly when we are discussing future business. So I will support this motion.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Go ahead, Mr. Volpe.

[Joe Volpe, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Did the parliamentary secretary have a vote on that steering committee at the time?

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

I think he did, but I don't think we ever had anything come to a vote. I think it was just by agreement most of the time.

[Paul Zed, Liberal, Saint John, NB]

My recollection from past committees, for whatever it's worth, is that I don't think anyone had a problem with the parliamentary secretary being on. It was a non-voting.... It was like an ex officio person. I'm just throwing that out. That's my recollection from other committees I've been involved with.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

The only advantage of allowing that vote is that it would break a tie, or it would force me to break a tie. Again, I don't think we ever.... I can't predict that it won't happen, but we didn't have that problem before.

Mr. Volpe.

[Joe Volpe, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Yes, and in the spirit of maintaining the kind of collegiality that developed in the committee in the latter part, as least when I was present, that I can recall.... All the guys on my side always choke when I do that. It's all emotion.

It's just keeping in mind that I think there's been a desire here to include the NDP as part of that. Since this is all going to go back to the full committee for any final approval, anyway, I don't think we have a problem with that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Again, as I've been advised, if it comes back to the committee as a whole, and if the committee disagrees with that decision, everyone can voice a vote at that point.

[Paul Zed, Liberal, Saint John, NB]

I guess it's fine. I don't have a problem.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

All right.

So motion 2, as moved, with the amendment by Mr. Jean, basically would read “and a member of the other opposition party and the parliamentary secretary”.

(Motion agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Motion 4, again, is on time allocation. The way it was written is the way we operated last year.

Yes, Mr. Jean.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

I was going to say that I did a spreadsheet—I don't know whether the clerk has a copy of it—that indicated the time each party and each member would receive. Quite frankly, on the basis of that distribution, which I don't have today, unfortunately, it seemed quite fair. In fact the NDP and other opposition parties were getting the majority of the time, to be blunt.

It seems fair, given the geography of Canada and the demographics of where each of us comes from, that each member should be able to include their constituency views and requests, especially on something such as transport and infrastructure in communities, which deals much more on the local than the broad level. That's why we went that route.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Carrier.

[Robert Carrier, Bloc, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

I support Mr. Jean's motion. I think the active participation of each committee member is essential if we are to maintain interest and enrich the discussion. The issue does not necessarily involve time allocation by political party, but rather the participation of committee members who are interested in having the committee function smoothly. So the most important thing is to ensure that everyone has a chance to speak before any consideration of partisan priorities.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Masse.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

I don't disagree with that. I don't know whether there's a mixup with what the committee was practising and the clerk has here, but there's a specific clause in here about a second round of five minutes.

What I'd be looking for, and maybe as some kind of amendment, is assurance that once every member has spoken, then I would get a second round of questioning. That would then provide at least some.... Everybody would get an opportunity to speak, and the parties have all gone through multiple speakers at that point. That's where I would look to have the second round of questioning assured.

I think that's a reasonable request. I'm not trying to get into a situation where we have a time problem and members don't get an opportunity to ask questions. I don't want that to be the case either. But if I had that assurance...because this was moved at some point in time—“and that thereafter five minutes be allocated to a second round for each party”—for a reason.

Once again, I don't object to every member getting a round, but I'd just look, before the chair uses the discretion.... The chair's discretion might be very good, but with this amendment I'd never have to worry about it, and the committee would never have to worry about it, if there's a substitute chair or something like that, or if things change. That assurance would be very important to me.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

I know Mr. Volpe has a comment.

I will say that we didn't designate a time space at the end of everyone having a chance, because usually people at that point had one question or two questions; they didn't necessarily need five minutes or seven minutes. It was just that whoever put their hand up was recognized by the chair, if there was time.

Mr. Volpe.

[Joe Volpe, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Mr. Chairman, this motion was designed to ensure that, as Mr. Carrier has said, every single member has an opportunity to speak. It wasn't so that the party would be guaranteed a particular speaking order; that's already handled by the first round. After that, it's all members of the committee. So only those members who have not spoken are the ones this amendment is designed to protect.

What I can derive from Mr. Masse's concern, and if we institutionalize his suggestion, is that it would be that then, in a subsequent round, assuming there is time or that other members do not want to speak, we actually invert the order of questioning and the NDP get the first next official round. I think I would have difficulty with that, not because I don't want them to speak but because my recollection of the way this committee has worked is that we don't always fill every particular spot, and the NDP member on this committee prior to today has always been ready to fill whatever vacancy was available. I think the chair, in using his discretion, ensured that would take place—in other words, that there would be protection for the member's interest.

But I'm not sure we need to institutionalize the partisan aspect of the next round. This committee works well when the chairman is allowed the discretion of saying, “Okay, we have 10 minutes to go, and I have five people who want to speak. I'm going to give everybody a chance to speak again, and it's two minutes each,” as opposed picking two people and that's it.

So I prefer the flexibility that has been brought in, because it addresses members and not parties.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

If I may—and we certainly can have more debate on this—does everyone has a copy of the motion that Mr. Jean has brought forward?

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

I'm going to read it into the record and then we will get copies. It does vary a little bit from what is listed in motion 4, but I think it says what Mr. Volpe is saying.

The motion reads:

That witnesses be given 10 minutes for their opening statement; that, for the questioning of witnesses, seven minutes be allocated to each party for the first round; and that, for all subsequent rounds, five minutes be allocated to each party for their members that have not yet spoken, starting with the official opposition, and any further time allowed will be allocated equally between each opposition party at the discretion of the Chair.

I think that summarizes what you're saying, Mr. Volpe.

[Joe Volpe, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

It's probably fairer than I would like to grant, because we are the official opposition, and what it does is give you, the chairman, an opportunity to bypass one of our members and go to either the Bloc member or the NDP member because we're giving you the discretion. But on the understanding that the composition is pretty well what it was last time and that this committee did try to cooperate, I would accept that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

It does state, “starting with the official opposition”. So that's in there.

Mr. Masse.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

With all due respect, I don't think I'm trying to be partisan by guaranteeing a second round of questioning after every member has participated, because even in the amendment—which I don't have a copy of and would like to have copy of, as I think that's only fair, to have that in front of me in terms of motions—is the actual quote, a subsequent second round for members of a party. So it is in there, even in the second round. It goes to those members of parties there.

So I think what I am asking is quite reasonable in the sense that once every member has spoken, I would have the opportunity to have the next round of questioning, prior to going to the discretion at that point, because it is still based upon party allocation as it goes to the second round and getting each individual member.

Generally speaking, I think once we've finished that, to have that guaranteed round would be appreciated, in my respect. I've always had an opportunity to have a second round of questioning. Most committees operate on that basis, and I'm not looking to undo anything.

When you look at this motion 4, it came to us for a reason. It has either been part of the history, or maybe the committee diverged from it in the last set of rounds, but it has shown up here from the clerk for a reason, because it was part of the past practice and it is part of a lot of other committee practices. I'm willing to diverge from that, but once again, just having that opportunity guaranteed for a second round when free time becomes available would be much appreciated, from my perspective.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Monsieur Laframboise.