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.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
I'm going to summarize it, and if everybody is in agreement we'll move forward.
I'm going to suggest that the opening round consist of NDP, Liberal, followed by Conservative, Conservative, and then we go NDP, Conservative, until everyone has exhausted their questions. Then the floor will be opened up again for further questioning. I suspect it will be the same as in the past, when we never usually got past that second round in most instances.
Liberal
Denis Coderre Liberal Bourassa, QC
Do I understand that there's only one round and then it's up for grabs?
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
Every round will be determined by party with the Liberals going second in the first round and then waiting until everyone else has had a chance or given up their spot. So you will be in the opening lineup.
Conservative
Jeff Watson Conservative Essex, ON
Mr. Chair, with due respect, I think the consensus position is New Democrat, Conservative, Liberal, Conservative in the first round.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
Whatever works, as long as we respect the fact that the Liberals are in that opening round.
Mr. Coderre.
Liberal
Denis Coderre Liberal Bourassa, QC
Mr. Chair, I must say that I am in favour of what you said at first, that we begin with the NDP and the Liberals. What's the problem? You will get to speak anyway. We would still respect the fact that the opposition should begin and then be followed by the government. We could keep going until 6 p.m. if you like; that's not a problem for me. Going to bed late wouldn't bother me. You will vote if you want to, but I really don't see what the problem is.
Even when the Bloc Québécois was here, they had the floor, which was then given to the NDP, and then to the Conservatives. We could make a big deal about this and talk about it until the cows come home, but let's have some respect for tradition.
Conservative
Jeff Watson Conservative Essex, ON
Mr. Chair, just to end the suggested discussion around the table, let me move as a formal amendment that the first round speaking order be New Democrat, Conservative, Liberal, Conservative. There would be no ambiguity there.
Conservative
Lee Richardson Conservative Calgary Centre, AB
I think it would deviate from traditional practice to do it that way. As long as I've been here—and that's a long time—it has always been that we have all of the opposition parties. In the previous Parliament we had the Liberals, the Bloc, the NDP, and then the Conservatives in the first round. That's always the way it's been. We always start with the opposition—all the opposition members—and then go to one Conservative member and then start the next round.
You've got a pretty good compromise now the way you've put it.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
Any further comment? We do have an amendment on the floor, which basically reads that the first round would be NDP, Conservative, Liberal, Conservative. Then we would alternate between the official opposition and government in the second and third until everybody has had an opportunity to speak or has given up their time.
Mr. Bevington.
NDP
Dennis Bevington NDP Western Arctic, NT
In reality, what used to happen was that I was the single member and we would go through every member sitting as a committee member, and then we would go back to the Liberals, the Bloc, and the NDP. So my turn would come after everyone had spoken and then in the order of the original sequence. It wasn't a case of....
NDP
Dennis Bevington NDP Western Arctic, NT
It wasn't a case of simply going back to the NDP after everybody had spoken. It then started over again with the Liberals, the Bloc, and then the NDP speaking afterwards. So I think if we compromise in the second round by giving the Liberal party a position, as we have, it is very generous for a single member sitting in the opposition, compared to what we had in the previous Parliament.
NDP
Dennis Bevington NDP Western Arctic, NT
But it is, in the second round. In the first round, I agree with Mr. Richardson that it's part of tradition that the opposition parties speak first. If we accept the motion of Mr. Watson, then we're going away from tradition, which I think is not what we should do. This is not an important point, and to change for no good reason a tradition that has served us well is not the thing to do.
So I'd say that we should stick with New Democrat, Liberal, Conservative, Conservative as being very solid. It gives the Conservative Party two spots of seven minutes in a row, which I think is very good. There's a generous recognition of their majority on the committee, and I would hope that you would respect that. That would then give us a balanced approach to working on this committee.
But in the second round, every member must speak, and then the next order is for the parties to return to their previous order. So you would see that happen again, where it would be Conservative, New Democrat, Conservative, New Democrat, Conservative, Conservative, New Democrat, and then Liberal.
These are important points when you're in the opposition, because of course there's limited time for questions, and we all know how important questioning witnesses is, the timing of it. We have all suffered from not having enough time to question a witness fully, and I think that's why we are engaged in this discussion right now, because it is important. This committee is going to be together for four years, and we need to do this right and make sure it's done in a fashion that matches up to the tradition and the practices of the committee before recognizing the changing nature of the political representation on the committee.
So that's what I would say should happen here.
Conservative
Jeff Watson Conservative Essex, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I raise two things for clarity, so we all understand what we could be voting on here. Can we have the clerk write out on the white board what the amendment would look like, and, if you will, even the second round, in terms of what has been moved and what has been suggested as an amendment?
Conservative
Conservative
Jeff Watson Conservative Essex, ON
I know, but there are a whole lot of things going on here in terms of suggestions that are not exactly what we are talking about.
Second, Mr. Chair, if I may continue while that's being done, if I recall the way this committee functioned last time, it went Liberal, Bloc, Conservative, NDP in the first round, did it not?
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
In the last session we went Liberal, Bloc, NDP, Conservative, back to Liberal, Bloc—because they had two members—back to Conservative, back to the Liberal for the third round, and then the Conservatives finished if....
Mr. Bevington is being very generous because I know in a lot of cases in the last committee you got one round.
NDP
Dennis Bevington NDP Western Arctic, NT
That's my point. Every member sitting around the table has to speak before anyone else gets to speak again. When you're a single person in a party on this committee, it would be unfair for you to speak before everyone else spoke, and it would also be unfair for you to get out of order once everyone else had spoken.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
Can everybody see that? The original suggestion was that it would go Conservative, New Democrat, Conservative, Liberal, and that would be seven minutes each. That would be followed by five minutes of everyone else who is at the table, until we get that complete, and then we start a fresh round. Mr. Watson has amended it by saying it should be...he has moved the C and the N back, so it's the New Democrats, the Conservatives, the Liberals, the Conservatives for the seven minutes, and then the same five minutes will apply.