Evidence of meeting #1 for Transport, Infrastructure and Communities in the 41st Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was second.
A recording is available from Parliament.
4:20 p.m.
NDP
4:20 p.m.
Conservative
Jeff Watson Conservative Essex, ON
I thought I moved a correction to the second round--I stand to be corrected, mind you--to move the Conservative position to the end of that round as well. That's the principle, of course, that all members should have a chance to ask a first question before any member has a chance to ask a second question.
Mr. Chair, that's exactly how the committee functioned last time, in the sense that all members had the opportunity to ask a first question before somebody had a second question.
4:25 p.m.
Conservative
4:25 p.m.
Liberal
Denis Coderre Liberal Bourassa, QC
Mr. Chair, I find the first round to be totally unacceptable. We clearly cannot have flexible principles. Being a member of Parliament means something, just as parliamentary traditions mean something. In a constitution, conventions are also important. I would have stood up for that regardless of my seat; I have always done so.
I think that we should first give the floor to the NDP, then the Liberals and then twice to the Conservatives. It's clear that the second round will pass. However, we have to get back to what Dennis said about respecting the representativeness of political parties. Winning one battle may not win the war. Four years is a long time. Sometimes, there are procedural tricks, and it takes me a little while to understand. That doesn't bother me.
I want to thank my colleague Lee Richardson for having the decency to honour tradition. After all, we do have to work and live together. I respectfully ask that we change things, so that the floor is given to the New Democrats, then the Liberals and then twice to the Conservatives. We would begin with the official opposition and finish with the government.
You have the last word, for God's sake.
I think that we must work accordingly. I will then go along with the decision.
I agree with Dennis. I understand that those who were in my place felt alone and didn't speak often. I understand all that. However, I also remember instances when, even though we were 173, we gave equal floor time to everyone. The important thing is that the political parties represent our fellow citizens. Every party had 20% because there were five political parties.
If you want to play that game, we can play for a long time, Mr. Chair; that's fine with me. My mother gave me her amazing ability to speak, and my father did the rest. So, things are good for me.
With all due respect, I suggest that we begin with the NDP, then move on to the Liberal Party, and then give the Conservatives two opportunities to speak. I will go along with the rest.
4:25 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
We will have to address this first before we can deal....
Mr. Poilievre.
4:25 p.m.
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Nepean—Carleton, ON
I don't think there's a problem with that last proposal.
Unless I'm mistaken, Mr. Coderre is suggesting that we change the order of the first round so that the Liberals would take the floor before the Conservatives.
4:25 p.m.
Liberal
Denis Coderre Liberal Bourassa, QC
That's correct. We would have the NDP, the Liberals, the Conservatives and then the Conservatives again.
4:25 p.m.
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Nepean—Carleton, ON
That's okay with us, and I understand the same goes for the rest. In my opinion, there's no problem, since we're only changing the speaking order and not the number of times a member may speak.
4:25 p.m.
Conservative
4:25 p.m.
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Nepean—Carleton, ON
No, your amendment is fine. I'd be proposing an amendment to your amendment.
4:25 p.m.
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Nepean—Carleton, ON
That's right, a subamendment to the subamendment on the subcommittee....
4:25 p.m.
Some hon. members
Oh, oh!
4:25 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
Apparently you can, and I'll give it a co-joint intervention by Monsieur Poilievre and Monsieur Coderre.
So what we have and what we will be voting on is that the sequence shall read: NDP, Liberal, Conservative, Conservative. We will go back to the NDP, Conservative, NDP, Conservative, until every member has had an opportunity to speak or has given up their time.
Mr. Albas.
4:25 p.m.
Conservative
Dan Albas Conservative Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC
This is a question for Mr. Coderre. Does he accept Poilievre's generosity in this joint venture?
4:25 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
I find that when you let conversations go on too long, sometimes they tend to get further away from what we're doing.
4:25 p.m.
Liberal
4:25 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
Merci.
I have taken the liberty of changing it, and that is actually what we're going to vote on, if that's suitable to everybody at the committee.
(Motion agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
While we're there, we didn't really touch on witness time.
I'll go to Mr. Watson on rounds of questioning.
4:30 p.m.
Conservative
Jeff Watson Conservative Essex, ON
Mr. Chair, I'll move that the witnesses from any one organization shall be allowed 10 minutes to make their opening statement. During the questioning of witnesses there shall be allocated seven minutes for the first round of questioning, and thereafter five minutes shall be allotted to each questioner in the second and subsequent rounds of questioning.
(Motion agreed to)
