Transport Committee on June 20th, 2011

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Mr. Chair, the NDP was always the third party in the committees I sat on in the past. We would begin with the opposition parties, that is, the official opposition, then go to the Bloc Québécois and the NDP, and finish with the Conservative Party. Therefore, I think it's unacceptable that we begin with the Conservative Party, continue with the NDP, go back to the Conservative Party and finish with the Liberal Party. You know that, when ministers are here for only an hour, we don't necessarily have enough time and we take some chances.

With all due respect, we should start with the NDP, continue with the Liberal Party and finish with the Conservative Party. It's a matter of acknowledging a system that has always worked. I understand that there is a single member who will have less speaking time. However, I want to remind you that, during the 37th Parliament, the Liberal Party of Canada formed a majority government and had 173 seats; the Canadian Alliance had 66; the Bloc Québécois had 37; the NDP had 13; and the Progressive Conservative Party had 12. On the Standing Committee on National Defence, everyone had 12 minutes to speak. The playing field was level.

I understand the numbers issue. I would like the Liberal Party to speak in the first round because we proceed by political party. Afterwards, in the second or third round, we could allow the Liberal Party to speak out of respect. Even in a minority government where there was only one NDP member on committees, we made sure that member would have the floor at least twice.

I think we need to be careful about that. I understand and accept the fact that all committee members have something to say, but I think that, in terms of organizing floor time, we need to respect every political party's right to speak. Since the Bloc Québécois is no longer here, there are three parties to consider. We should be able to even things out.

The goal is for everything to work while respecting the government's majority status and that of the new official opposition. Nevertheless, there is a third party. There are always ways to have more floor time. We are familiar with a few tricks my NDP friends have used in the past. I think it would be more fair to go with the NDP, the Liberal Party and then the Conservative Party in the first round. Afterwards, in the second round, we could adjust and ensure that we have the floor at least twice. Otherwise, with the witnesses, we'll never have the floor. That would not promote democracy or the usefulness of committee work.

I'm respectfully asking my colleagues to consider that. We're talking about a tradition, a way to proceed, whether in a majority or a minority situation. My colleague Mr. Richardson and several others are familiar with different governments. Regardless of what government was in power and despite the law of numbers, we have always worked in a balanced and respectful way to ensure that every individual and political party had the floor. Ultimately, there is nothing to be won.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Watson.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Mr. Chair, with due respect to my colleague, in the last three minority Parliaments I don't remember the Liberals being that charitable in working with the opposition members and virtually having their way at committees.

Having said that, I offer something as a suggestion rather than a formal amendment or motion. It might satisfy the member to move the suggested first Conservative spot to the end of the first round such that it would read that the round of questioning shall be NDP, Conservative, Liberal, Conservative. That may give him greater assurance that the Liberals would have a full round of questioning should a minister appear.

I make that as a suggestion. Maybe it is something worth discussing.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Although Mr. Bevington is the only carry-over from the other side, we always made sure the third party had a voice at the table. We had a rule that everybody here, as a committee member, should have a right to question, and if we run out of questions then we open the floor up to give other people a chance to ask two or three questions, if they so choose. But we felt, as Monsieur Coderre has said, that every member has the right and probably the responsibility to ask questions.

Mr. Bevington.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Well, I see that we may have a problem here if we're in a situation with the minister presenting. If there are 20 minutes of presentation with the minister's presentation in an hour, we may run into problems in the second round. I see Conservative, NDP, Liberal, Conservative, Conservative, NDP, Conservative, NDP, Conservative. Perhaps it would be fairer to start off the second round with the official opposition questioning on the five-minute questions. It would give us more assurances that the opposition got its time in within a one-hour witness presentation.

That's something that I would want to see in place. I think that's fair, too. There is some changing of rotation there between the Conservatives. As it stands now, the Conservatives will hold three out of the first five speaking positions in answering questions. It would be fairer to have the second round starting with the official opposition.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Any comments?

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

In the first round I don't see the problems there because there's time for everyone to speak regardless of order. The timeframe is just simply, okay, it will work. Everyone will get a chance to speak, and the Conservatives, holding the majority on committee, will have two chances to speak in the first round at seven minutes.

If we examine the previous time when the official opposition had the majority on committees, we had that opportunity. It's just that the second round should be lined up a little more for the opposition, in a spirit of fairness.

So if I could suggest that, the second round would start with the official opposition and then carry on, with the Liberals guaranteed a spot after the third NDP spot. I think that would be fair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Monsieur Coderre.

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Thank you.

When you talk about the first round, are we saying that we start with the Conservatives? You have a minister, and the first question comes from his own side? Usually, the first question has to come from the official opposition, and then the second opposition, and then you go on to the Conservatives. I don't understand why you would have the minister and then you start with a Conservative. Am I wrong? That's what I'm trying to understand.

Thanks for that second point. I agree with you, Dennis. But on the first one, you don't start with the Conservatives, you start with the official opposition when you have the minister in front of you, and then you go with the second opposition, and then you complete with the government, who can have all the planted questions it wants. The reality is that you don't start with a pat on the shoulder, you start with a question.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Bevington.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Well, that is a point of debate rather than a point of fairness.

I'm okay with that if that's the tradition of Parliament. I've been here for five years, and I have noticed that the official opposition tends to ask the first questions of the minister. You're correct. That's the way Parliament acts. I wasn't sure whether that was simply a product of the opposition holding the majority of seats on the committee or whether that was a tradition that went beyond the five years that I was there.

If you go back to when the Liberals had a majority on the committees, did they get the first set of questions or did they not? That would be something that a—

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

I always started with the official opposition.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Okay. Well, then I would agree that we should start with the official opposition.

I was more concerned with making sure that the official opposition is well represented in the second round, where many times you run out of time for questioning. I think that's fair as well. That's why I spoke to the second round.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Watson.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Let me see whether this works. In both the first and second round, the proposed first Conservative speaker moves to the end of each round. Is that more what you're suggesting? So in the first round it would be New Democrat, Conservative, Liberal, Conservative. Then in the second it would be New Democrat, Conservative, New Democrat, Conservative, New Democrat, Conservative, Conservative.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

That's right.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

That would ensure that all parties would participate in the first round, and depending on the time.... We're okay with that?

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

Just wait a second here. With respect, Mr. Chair—

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Poilievre.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

Thank you for lending me the floor.

The list as proposed in the motion ensures that every party gets a voice in the first round, and that thereafter questions are roughly distributed in proportion to membership on the committee. The fact that one member in this room is guaranteed a quarter of all the first-round questions is by itself quite generous. It guarantees that this member—I'm not pointing to any one in particular—will be guaranteed the opportunity to speak every single first round. There's not a single other member in this entire room who will have that privilege. Then you're saying that he would be guaranteed a spot in the second round as well.

[An hon. member]

We're not suggesting that at all.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Basically, the next opportunity for him to speak would be after everybody else has spoken, or has given up his or her time.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Monsieur Coderre.

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Mr. Chair, in a committee, every member has the right to speak, but we have always allocated floor time by taking into consideration the political parties present. I don't need Pierre Poilievre's generosity. The voters are the ones who elected me. The purpose of a committee, when we ask questions or conduct studies, is to make sure that all political parties are duly represented, that they have the opportunity to share their perspective and to contribute to the proceedings based on their values and platform. You know how politics work. Everyone provides their point of view. It's not a matter of being generous, but of respecting British parliamentary traditions.

Regarding the first question, there has always been the official opposition and the second largest opposition party. We may want to resolve this situation now and ensure that every political party has the right to speak. The parties will then have to be able to assert that right, in consideration of the fact that the weight of representativity varies, regardless of the government.

You're too young to have witnessed this, Jeff, but when we were in power, we were generous. It wasn't much use, since we succeed in working together anyway. In the committee, we must be watchful and ensure that we do a good job. However, if the work is not being done, it can turn... I don't want to use any bad words, so as not to get the interpreters worked up. You may notice that I sometimes use my own expressions.

I just want to make sure that things work properly, Mr. Chair. I am familiar with your wisdom and your way of doing things. You have my full support, but I think that we also need to be respectful and ensure that every party gets to speak. We represent a percentage of the vote, a political party. Therefore, we have to strike a certain balance. I don't want to hear about generosity, since I have the floor in the first round anyway. Let's make sure that everyone gets to speak. Every political party should have that right. We're not here because of charity. Regardless of the number of MPs, all the political parties had the right to speak in every committee I sat on. Let's work towards that. We will vote without any problems.

Let's start with the official opposition and then move on to the second largest opposition party. After that, the government can ask its questions. In addition, if the government wants to have the floor twice in a row, I don't care, but that should be clear from the outset. The same goes for the second and third rounds.